L. Brooks: "I Don't Want to End Sprawl. I Love it."

Occurrence · February-12-12, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by bartock

And GOD FORBID the man actually does have a bone in his body that cares about the region, which could be accurately described as just as much City as it is Suburb.

wait a second, isn't L. Brooks and his Sheriff fighting hard against the medical marijuana industry, which is something that can help not only the region, but the whole state economically? Doesn't sound like he cares to much abut te region or people who benefit from the medicine. Sounds more like he has his own personal agenda to me.

**antongast** · February-12-12, 03:07 PM

Coming from a guy who's had this on his website for years, should this really come as a surprise to anybody? Patterson is, and always has been, openly pro-sprawl.

**antongast** · February-12-12, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

one man's sprawl is another man's growth.

This is a controversial statement. You might agree with Patterson that "sprawl" and "growth" have the same definition but different connotations, but that opinion is hardly universal. I would argue that metro Detroit is sprawling but not growing, and there are other places that are growing but not sprawling, and this shouldn't be possible if the two words essentially mean the same thing.

bartock · February-12-12, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Occurrence

wait a second, isn't L. Brooks and his Sheriff fighting hard against the medical marijuana industry, which is something that can help not only the region, but the whole state economically? Doesn't sound like he cares to much abut te region or people who benefit from the medicine. Sounds more like he has his own personal agenda to me.

Ummmm, OK then.

**HistoryNotHisStory** · February-12-12, 04:35 PM

Thinking like this keeps America in the Dark Ages. No foresight for the future or progressive living.

They only see the $$$ but does not perceive the resultant of poor planning that occurs from sprawl and the unsustainable nature of it.

**animatedmartian** · February-12-12, 06:27 PM

If he's so pro-sprawl, why doesn't he get OC residents to support building M-5 through to 75? That'll certainly spur off development on the westside of OC.

**BrushStart** · February-12-12, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Mark Smiles

People have a right to follow their dreams. If others want to call it sprawl, I really don't care.

Those who want to make it illegal for people to follow their dreams scare me.

If someone does not want to see a piece of property developed one can purchase it and feel good about driving by it once in a while.

Mark, some people's "dreams" are costing me an obscene amount of money. What scares me is people expecting me to forgo my dreams to pay for theirs.

**Zaiko** · February-12-12, 06:57 PM

The Michigan Land Use Institute did this report in 2005.

http://www.mlui.org/growthmanagement...p?fileid=16785

But I'm not sure if they came up with a formula for calculating the cost of sprawl.

**313WX** · February-12-12, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by Zaiko

The Michigan Land Use Institute did this report in 2005.

http://www.mlui.org/growthmanagement...p?fileid=16785

But I'm not sure if they came up with a formula for calculating the cost of sprawl.

Thanks for the link.

Page 3 especially hits the ball out of the park [[and quite a few people around here right in the nuts).

But nope, we're the crazy one if we don't endorse or enjoy sprawl...

**Bham1982** · February-12-12, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by antongast

This is a controversial statement. You might agree with Patterson that "sprawl" and "growth" have the same definition but different connotations, but that opinion is hardly universal. I would argue that metro Detroit is sprawling but not growing, and there are other places that are growing but not sprawling, and this shouldn't be possible if the two words essentially mean the same thing.

I totally disagree. I don't see how you can say it's a controversial statement.

He's simply saying that sprawl means different things to different people [[as we can clearly see in this thread). How is that a controversial statement?

**Bham1982** · February-12-12, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by BrushStart

Mark, some people's "dreams" are costing me an obscene amount of money. What scares me is people expecting me to forgo my dreams to pay for theirs.

IMO that's a good reason to oppose sprawl, but that logic would pretty much dictate we abandon Detroit, because it's also a terrible economic burden on the region. There are lots of inefficient and economically dependent uses in this region.

**antongast** · February-12-12, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I totally disagree. I don't see how you can say it's a controversial statement.

He's simply saying that sprawl means different things to different people [[as we can clearly see in this thread). How is that a controversial statement?

"One man's sprawl is another man's growth" and "sprawl means different things to different people" are not equivalent statements. Patterson thinks the word "sprawl" is "a pejorative" and that anyone who uses it is trying to curtail his "free choice." There's room for debate about the exact definition of sprawl, but only if we all agree that it's a real thing.

**Novine** · February-12-12, 09:39 PM

As anyone who has paid attention for the past 40 years knows, Metro Detroit hasn't grown at all. We've sprawled outward for 30 years while our population barely registered an increase. Over the past 10 years, the population of the metro area actually declined. Over that same time period, we've continued to extend the infrastructure out to the edges of the suburbs, leaving behind a built environment in Detroit and a massive amount of debt everywhere that sprawl has occurred. We have massive amounts of infrastructure that is underutilized and has major costs to maintain but some people want us to build more. How stupid is that?

Out here in suburbs, we have communities that have been saddled with the cost of paying off the debt payments for water and sewer systems built for failed residential developments. They are cutting back on basic services in order to pay off the debts left when the growth machine was turned off. Our roads are a disaster. The Road Commission is continuously pleading poverty because they can't maintain the road network. If development continues to move out to the sticks, where the money going to come from the maintain the roads out there?

Contrary to what Patterson claims, I don't care where people live. If they want to live out in the exurbs and commute an hour or more each way to work, they're free to do so. I think the decisions to do so is foolish and wasteful but I'm not going to stop them. But don't ask everyone else to finance that choice. No longer should people in Detroit or the inner-suburbs be asked to pay the cost to maintain their own infrastructure and the infrastructure of those who live out in the sticks. The day we start fully assessing the cost of growth to those who want to live that lifestyle is the day that the sprawl machine will shut down. Because few can actually afford to pay for that lifestyle choice.

**iheartthed** · February-12-12, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I totally disagree. I don't see how you can say it's a controversial statement.

He's simply saying that sprawl means different things to different people [[as we can clearly see in this thread). How is that a controversial statement?

Well, it's not controversial IMO, just flat out wrong. Economic development does not occur in a vacuum, so no, one man's sprawl is not another man's economic development. If sprawl poaches economic development from one community to another community then nothing was created. It's redistribution.

Saying that sprawl -- which is not the same as development catalyzed by real economic/population expansion -- is "economic development" is absurd. That's like saying Wall Street creates wealth.

The bottom line is that Oakland County has not created an economy. It inherited an economy that "sprawled" into its borders. Furthermore, because it is landlocked and not at the historical center of the region, there is hardly any physical feature that makes it vital to Metro Detroit's future, such as a port, border gateway, transit junction, etc. It doesn't host the region's major airport, nor is it a major hub of higher learning institutions.

I don't hate Oakland County or suburbs, Detroit's or any other city's. But Oakland County's only spade has always been sprawl and sucking "economic development" from Detroit. This may have been good for Oakland County's books in the short term, but it was absolutely destructive for the region as a whole.

**hortonz** · February-12-12, 10:15 PM

The problems of urban sprawl are hardly unique to Detroit. Look across the river to Windsor and the exodus of residents to nearby suburbs.

bartock · February-13-12, 01:13 AM

Originally Posted by Novine

As anyone who has paid attention for the past 40 years knows, Metro Detroit hasn't grown at all. We've sprawled outward for 30 years while our population barely registered an increase. Over the past 10 years, the population of the metro area actually declined. Over that same time period, we've continued to extend the infrastructure out to the edges of the suburbs, leaving behind a built environment in Detroit and a massive amount of debt everywhere that sprawl has occurred. We have massive amounts of infrastructure that is underutilized and has major costs to maintain but some people want us to build more. How stupid is that?

Out here in suburbs, we have communities that have been saddled with the cost of paying off the debt payments for water and sewer systems built for failed residential developments. They are cutting back on basic services in order to pay off the debts left when the growth machine was turned off. Our roads are a disaster. The Road Commission is continuously pleading poverty because they can't maintain the road network. If development continues to move out to the sticks, where the money going to come from the maintain the roads out there?

Contrary to what Patterson claims, I don't care where people live. If they want to live out in the exurbs and commute an hour or more each way to work, they're free to do so. I think the decisions to do so is foolish and wasteful but I'm not going to stop them. But don't ask everyone else to finance that choice. No longer should people in Detroit or the inner-suburbs be asked to pay the cost to maintain their own infrastructure and the infrastructure of those who live out in the sticks. The day we start fully assessing the cost of growth to those who want to live that lifestyle is the day that the sprawl machine will shut down. Because few can actually afford to pay for that lifestyle choice.

Exactly. In the particular speech offered for those to link on quoted to start this thread, I didn't hear that LBP was asking for it. If he was, in that speech, then I'd probably agree with most of the sentiments that followed here. Agreed that there is a need to fully assess the costs, because clearly those who choose to sprawl out feel that they are paying for it in their tax dollars, while clearly there are those closer to the center that feel it is wasteful. Novine this is not aimed at you - but amazing that others can call it stupid, call it misguided, call it crazy, call it whatever, but [[see the I-94 expansion board, for an example) suggest that somehow it is unfair using statements that claim to be facts when those statements are at best rhetorical.

bartock · February-13-12, 01:18 AM

Originally Posted by BrushStart

Mark, some people's "dreams" are costing me an obscene amount of money. What scares me is people expecting me to forgo my dreams to pay for theirs.

Opinion - I'm not sure that your first statement is true, but the second is 100% on.

**oladub** · February-13-12, 01:31 AM

I know that it would not be politically acceptable to take the necessary measures to eliminate crime in Detoit but if that were accomplished, people would be piling into Detroit instead of building third tier suburban sprawl.

**j to the jeremy** · February-13-12, 08:54 AM

All the main points have already been covered in here.

Sprawl is not "growth" when there is a decreasing population in the region.

LBP was politically lucky to be in charge of Oakland in this era, and not in the next 50 years when it crumbles.

LBP insinuates that a simple desire for green space was more influential than, say, Urban Renewal or federally subsidized highways, in creating his "growth". This is criminal to suggest in the 21st century, we live in the only region in the USA where a politician can still sell the suburban American dream with a straight face. We also live in the region that best shows the flaws of that dream- we're the largest city without an RTA, we have horrible income inequality, and the region is segregated almost exclusively by race, in the same patterns started 50 years ago after those very highways were constructed. We also have obesity problems, a landscape of sprawl that is difficult for children, those with disabilities, and seniors to get around in, and no plans to change anything in the near future.

My question to LBP- would he still like to live in Oakland County if he couldn't afford a car?

**Bham1982** · February-13-12, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by j to the jeremy

My question to LBP- would he still like to live in Oakland County if he couldn't afford a car?

Kind of a silly question, no? Like asking if he wanted to live in Oakland County if he couldn't afford a living space.

Outside of NYC, there is no place in the U.S. where the strong majority of households don't have at least one car.

The U.S. is a car oriented nation where car ownership is a rough proxy for mobility. The number of choice transit riders is a non-factor almost everywhere. Has nothing to do with Oakland County.

**313WX** · February-13-12, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The bottom line is that Oakland County has not created an economy. It inherited an economy that "sprawled" into its borders. Furthermore, because it is landlocked and not at the historical center of the region, there is hardly any physical feature that makes it vital to Metro Detroit's future, such as a port, border gateway, transit junction, etc. It doesn't host the region's major airport, nor is it a major hub of higher learning institutions.

I don't hate Oakland County or suburbs, Detroit's or any other city's. But Oakland County's only spade has always been sprawl and sucking "economic development" from Detroit. This may have been good for Oakland County's books in the short term, but it was absolutely destructive for the region as a whole.

Bingo!!! And those are just undeniable facts. Fact of the matter is Oakland county has no more wealth than Detroit had in 1950, unadjusted for inflation. Everything just more modern and spread out, that's all. But it's funny how that's lost in the midst of all the anti-Detroit/pro-Oakland County rhetoric.

And it's also why comparing our sprawl to sprawl in other regions is flawed as well. Other regions [[Chicago is a excellent example) actually grew in conjunction with their sprawl. What about Detroit?

**Bham1982** · February-13-12, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by 313WX

And it's also why comparing our sprawl to sprawl in other regions is flawed as well. Other regions [[Chicago is a excellent example) actually grew in conjunction with their sprawl. What about Detroit?

Metro Detroit also grew in conjunction with its sprawl.

Metro Detroit is very close to its historical population peak, which was reached in the early 2000's.

In contrast to metros like Pittsburgh and Cleveland, Detroit grows most years. It had very impressive growth during the 1990's, but obviously stumbled badly during the late 00's.

And, as always, it's the auto industry, not sprawl or transit, that guides the areas growth and decline.

I have say, I don't get all the irrational Oakland County hatred. I thought "we're all supposed to work together" and whatnot. Oakland has some of the densest, most walkable parts of the metro.

**Detroitnerd** · February-13-12, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by SteveJ

The problem is very few work downtown. I was downtown a week ago on a Wednesday or Thursday going to get lunch and it was just a ghost town at noon. In any big city, it would be swamped with workers going to get lunch. Not Detroit.

I would disagree. Downtown Detroit at lunchtime is not a "ghost town." Other big cities have more pedestrian traffic, but tens of thousands of metro Detroiters work downtown and there are scores of lunch places that do very well downtown. Not sure how they'd survive without the patronage, frankly ...

**Novine** · February-13-12, 12:00 PM

"In contrast to metros like Pittsburgh and Cleveland, Detroit grows most years. It had very impressive growth during the 1990's, but obviously stumbled badly during the late 00's."

Impressive? Between 1980 and 1990, the Detroit MSA grew 0.7%. Between 1990 and 2000, it grew 1.6%. Between 2000 and 2010, it declined 3.5%. By contrast, between 2000 and 2010, Charlotte, NC MSA grew 32%. Riverside-San Bernadino, CA, MSA grew by 29% and its population almost exceeded Detroit's MSA. Those are impressive growth numbers. Detroit's? Not impressive by any measure.

http://proximityone.com/metros0010.htm

**Bham1982** · February-13-12, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Novine;303413[COLOR=#333333

Impressive? Between 1980 and 1990, the Detroit MSA grew 0.7%. Between 1990 and 2000, it grew 1.6%. Between 2000 and 2010, it declined 3.5%. By contrast, between 2000 and 2010, Charlotte, NC MSA grew 32%. Riverside-San Bernadino, CA, MSA grew by 29% and its population almost exceeded Detroit's MSA. Those are impressive growth numbers. Detroit's? Not impressive by any measure.
[/COLOR]

I'm comparing apples-to-apples.

Relative to other Rust Belt metros, Detroit has exhibited fairly robust growth. It's post-WWII growth rates have regularly bested most other cities in the industrialized Great Lakes region.

Though you're right that my terminology was off, as Detroit's growth isn't really "impressive", but it isn't a negative outlier either.

Obviously Detroit's relative growth sucks compared to Riverside-San Bernadino, which is just an exurban centerless Sunbelt sprawl.

But I thought, [[according to this thread, at least) that centerless Sunbelt sprawls with no transit can't grow. How is it that this heat-baked crapload of ugly SoCal cities manages to grow?