Regarding Coleman Young, I do not remember him, but you might find this comment that was left on my blog from a Detroit native and currently a city planner in the Chicago area interesting. NB: He is African American:

I know Detroit very well, having grown up there. I visit 1-2 times a year. I've only been to Cleveland 2 or 3 times, but it has always struck me as being very similar to Detroit in its built environment and its local culture. I think that the only real difference between Detroit and Cleveland was the diversity of the manufacturing sector -- Detroit was/is very auto-dominant, while Cleveland's manufacturing base was a little broader. Still, both suffered the same decline.

To me, there are three overarching factors that led to the decline of both cities. The first is poor race relations. Detroit and Cleveland both had dynamic/charismatic/controversial black mayors who entered City Hall at the same time the wheels were coming off the industrial sector [[the late '60s and early '70s). Coleman Young and Carl Stokes [[like many first-generation African-American politicians) ran on an "it's our turn" platform that was especially alienating to the white-ethnic middle class, largely because African-Americans had never really been a part of the power or establishment structure prior to their elections. And neither mayor was willing or able to be inclusive in their governance once in office; in fact, I don't believe either was effective in governing [[and I say this as an African-American). I believe that Young and Stokes were the impetus that gave the white-ethnic middle class the reason to not only move from the city, but to eradicate it from their consciousness. Yes -- eradicate it from their consciousness. Those who fled for the burbs in both cities psychologically and emotionally abandoned them. Does any city have worse city-suburban relations than these two? [[As an aside, I think the one thing that kept Chicago from falling like Detroit and Cleveland was the leadership of Richard J. Daley and the political Machine. Chicago held onto its white-ethnic middle class far longer than either Detroit or Cleveland, because that group had confidence in their leadership. I think that enabled Chicago to make its transition to globalization much easier.)

The second factor is education. I would argue that both Cleveland and Detroit established public school systems in the late 1940s that were designed to give its graduates the rudimentary skills needed to survive in the industrial world. And they're still doing that today. And I don't limit this to just the city public school systems -- many suburban school systems follow the same pattern. The result? An ever-growing base of residents without true analytical or problem-solving skills, or even the desire to examine and question, "why?" This becomes compounded when in-migration comes to a stand-still.

The third factor is culture -- which may actually supercede and impact the first two. There is little to no entrepreneurship in either city. There is little leadership by the industrial/corporate titans in either city. There are so many people still waiting for the return of good-paying, low-skilled manufacturing jobs in both cities. Why? There are so many people chasing the same empty dreams that other cities are pursuing? Why?
------------------------
Second post from this person in the same thread:

I think some people misunderstand my points on how race is an issue in Cleveland and Detroit. Let me see if I can clarify.

First, I said race was an issue, not the issue. Clearly other cities have had horrid race relations problems [[Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee come to mind), but few cities had the up-front challenge to the political and cultural establishment by African-Americans that Detroit and Cleveland did in the late '60s and early '70s. In both cities, new administrations upset the applecart and completely disrupted the status quo.

This I believe led to accelerated suburban flight, and a psychological abandonment of the city by those moving out. Why is this psychological abandonment important? Because it leads to the bad image problems both cities have. All of a sudden, Detroit is not the "Arsenal of Democracy" anymore, it is the home of devastating riots and "murder capital of the world". Cleveland has a river that catches fire and a government that goes belly-up. What suburbanite wants to be associated with that? The new suburbanites mentally vacated Detroit and Cleveland even moreso than physically. I read recently that over the last 15 years or so, 1 out of 7 burial plots in Detroit cemeteries have been disinterred and relocated to places closer to the suburban or out-of-state locales where people are now. Can there be a clearer picture of psychological abandonment? You team that social challenge with the industrial decline of the time, the poor quality education, and a culture that doesn't nourish entrepreneurial energy, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Lastly, here's my provocative statement. If Chicago, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Milwaukee had gotten the same kind of charismatic/controversial African-American mayor in the late '60s or early '70s, they would each have precisely the same problems that Detroit and Cleveland have today.