A trip into the city today

**royce** · January-02-10, 06:30 AM

It is time that the world knows that a billionaire owns this train station. When news crews or reporters show this station to represent the decay in Detroit, they never mention that it is owned by a billionaire, Matty Maroun. It is assumed that the City of Detroit owns it and that it is the city that's allowing it to sit looking like it does. The city, if it did own it, probably would tear it down one day, but not anytime soon. Yet the billionaire could restore it but doesn't, why? And why doesn't the city fine Maroun up the wazoo for not maintaining his property? Could it be because Kwame and his mom Caroline got hefty campaign contributions from him? Is Mayor Bing beholden to Maroun as well? These are the questions that need to be explored and answered by those doing a story on MCS, instead of taking a picture of it and telling the world the same old story about Detroit's decay.

**dtowncitylover** · January-02-10, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by royce

It is time that the world knows that a billionaire owns this train station. When news crews or reporters show this station to represent the decay in Detroit, they never mention that it is owned by a billionaire, Matty Maroun. It is assumed that the City of Detroit owns it and that it is the city that's allowing it to sit looking like it does. The city, if it did own it, probably would tear it down one day, but not anytime soon. Yet the billionaire could restore it but doesn't, why? And why doesn't the city fine Maroun up the wazoo for not maintaining his property? Could it be because Kwame and his mom Caroline got hefty campaign contributions from him? Is Mayor Bing beholden to Maroun as well? These are the questions that need to be explored and answered by those doing a story on MCS, instead of taking a picture of it and telling the world the same old story about Detroit's decay.

Royce you do make excellent points, but it wasn't something that came to mind.

I get to do this all again tomorrow, actually. I'm taking another friend of mine and a French exchange student. We all go to OU and we have an exchange thing with Universite d'Orleans.

Retroit · January-02-10, 02:52 PM

I think you should take them through more representative areas of Detroit. They can see mansions, museums, and skylines anywhere, but where else but Detroit can a person experience the destruction and desolation that you can find in Detroit. After touring Palmer Woods, take them to the other side of Woodward.

I, personally, would feel gypped not to see the good and bad of a city. If I was only shown the good side, I probably would think that MCS could be used again SOON. After all, if everyone in Detroit lives in Palmer Woods, B-E type neighborhoods, what's the problem?

**jt1** · January-02-10, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

I think you should take them through more representative areas of Detroit. They can see mansions, museums, and skylines anywhere, but where else but Detroit can a person experience the destruction and desolation that you can find in Detroit. After touring Palmer Woods, take them to the other side of Woodward.

I, personally, would feel gypped not to see the good and bad of a city. If I was only shown the good side, I probably would think that MCS could be used again SOON. After all, if everyone in Detroit lives in Palmer Woods, B-E type neighborhoods, what's the problem?

So when you visit friends in other cities they take you to see the slums? When you travel to other coutries do you seek out the bad neighborhoods.

I've seen a significant part of this country and many other countries. Interestingly enough people I visit elsewhere never take me to see the worst neighborhoods.

Retroit · January-02-10, 03:17 PM

Yes, in fact, I do. I find them to be just as interesting as the "best" neighborhoods.

[[Were those rhetorical questions?)

**Kathleen** · January-02-10, 03:19 PM

I agree with jt1. Most people do not want or need to see the seedier side of a city when visiting it. I know that when we've wandered into the south side of Chicago or East St. Louis or similar parts of a city we've visited, especially when you know that you're just following the map from point A to point B, we've been very wary of our surroundings and moved on as quickly as possible. Unless you know the area very well and/or have a specific site to visit, there's no need to linger.

That's not to say that when taking visitors around the city that you need to avoid all the unsightly places, but unless they have a specific interest in the ruins, it's rather a waste of time when you have only a limited time to see the sites and the clock is ticking away!

**cman710** · January-02-10, 04:50 PM

I agree with Ray and Kathleen. As Kathleen is well aware, I have been interested in some of Detroit's ruins, and have thus spent time in some areas one might not typically show a tourist.

At the same time, I recognize that I am not a typical visitor, and that most tourists would have no desire to see the city's seedier side. I think that this is even more true for someone unfamiliar with an area, as unfamiliarity makes it more difficult to stay out of inadvertent problems. For example, if one is not familiar with a given area, one may not know that a given corner is an active and potentially dangerous drug market.

All in all, I do not think it is a problem to show tourists only Detroit's best side. While I think it is unfortunate that many people do not understand Detroit's problems, I also think it is unrealistic to expect all tourists to want to see the city's worst side. After all, in other cities, tourists typically stick to the best areas, so I do not see why Detroit would be any different.

**dtowncitylover** · January-02-10, 05:50 PM

I had, as Willy Wonka puts it, so much to do and so little time. The first one I did, he had already been to Detroit and knew some of it. But we just had other plans, like the DIA and Windsor. So tomorrow, I'll be sure to take these people all around. I know Detroit well and thank you for all the suggestions.