Urban growth boundary in southeast Michigan (Detroit, Hamtramck: car insurance, high crime, theater)

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by PA Born

The costs are plenty, but here are the biggest-

Would decrease affordability

Would probably lead to greater population and economic loss, because people wouldn't have the option of new, sprawly construction (which many or most people seem to prefer in SE Michigan)

Would increase taxes

Valid points, but how affordable do we have to be? Are $1000 houses not affordable enough? I'd agree that if you put a permanent boundary in place and the population exploded, you would create a dramatic rise in housing costs. But we have the opposite problem right now.

I doubt that people would move out of the area just because they couldn't live on the outskirts of the city. Comparable housing could be built in the city. Look on the east side of Detroit. They've built a subdivision with housing comparable to what you would find on 22 mile road. Google Maps

As for economic loss, consider the economic loss caused within the inner city caused by unchecked outward growth. These abandoned or low-occupancy areas create a economic burden on the metropolitan area as a whole.

How would taxes increase? Seems to me you would have a decrease because you would have more people (within any given area) paying taxes, so they should not have to be increased on a per-person basis. It could also be argued that people will actually be willing to pay more taxes if they were to increase. Look at the high taxes paid by New Yorkers. I'm not advocating higher taxes, but I don't think it is as big a factor.

[aallaann]

Originally Posted by Retroit

I doubt that people would move out of the area just because they couldn't live on the outskirts of the city.

I agree and I don't think there would be a grass root opposition to a boundary. But I do think the larger home developers would send dump trucks full of money to pay for a campaign that would paint the idea as communist evil.

[PA Born]

Originally Posted by Retroit

I doubt that people would move out of the area just because they couldn't live on the outskirts of the city.

I sure as hell would move out.

I mean, if I want a new construction home in a top school district within a certain budget, the imposition of a growth boundary would basically destroy this equation for most new construction homebuyers.

I would just move beyond the growth boundary, or out of the region entirely. Not everyone can afford Birmingham or Bloomfield Hills.

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by aallaann

I agree and I don't think there would be a grass root opposition to a boundary. But I do think the larger home developers would send dump trucks full of money to pay for a campaign that would paint the idea as communist evil.

That's probably true. But those developers should realize that they can still be profitable with an Urban Growth Boundary. There are plenty of empty lots in existing areas. In fact, they can build whole new subdivisions in some areas of Detroit.

On the other hand, unbridled growth is only temporarily profitable for builders. Once the markets crash, they suffer greatly. By controlling growth, builders can have more stable long-term revenues. As a group, they really should be the ones in favor of it. As individual companies trying to outdo each other, they end up hurting each other and the industry as a whole. With an UGB, new demand for home construction can be divvied up between the builders.

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by PA Born

I sure as hell would move out.

I mean, if I want a new construction home in a top school district within a certain budget, the imposition of a growth boundary would basically destroy this equation for most new construction homebuyers.

I would just move beyond the growth boundary, or out of the region entirely. Not everyone can afford Birmingham or Bloomfield Hills.

But that's the problem: when people just move out, that deteriorates the existing areas. If people can't run away everytime their school's MEAP scores drop a few points, then they take measures to ensure that their school's MEAP points don't drop.

As for this countries obsession with new homes, that is quite a problem. There is no reason why a home can't be lived in for hundreds of years as they are in Europe and elsewhere. Also, old homes that are in unacceptable condition can be torn down and replaced. It's not like no new homes will ever be built; it's simply ensuring that (almost) all existing homes are occupied before new ones are built so that we don't create these vast swaths of uninhabited areas.

[Jimmy252]

Originally Posted by Retroit

There are plenty of empty lots in existing areas. In fact, they can build whole new subdivisions in some areas of Detroit.

Amen to that... I know for sure crime is probably the #1 problem stopping that from happening along with school performance, but if Singh or Pulte put up a nice looking neighborhood within city limits and crime was down, Id definitely consider moving inward. I love the vibe of Detroit...Just not the current crime rates. If good people stuck around to fix the problems instead of fleeing to new developments, the issue of a growth boundary wouldn't even be necessary.

[aallaann]

Originally Posted by PA Born

I sure as hell would move out.

My guess is that there would be a migration out of the region lead by home buyers looking for that new-house smell and an migration into the region by those attracted to the more livable urban environment. It would be interesting to know what the net effect would be.

[btownboss4]

Originally Posted by Retroit

Those are valid points. If you have a decent city, people will want to move there. But how do you create a "decent city". Well, in Boston, you create a financial services sector. In DC, you create runaway government spending. But what if you don't have those "magnets" to draw people into the city? Detroit used to have an extensive auto industry which drew people in. Now they are down to 2 assembly plants and a few parts suppliers, just a fraction of what it once was. Most of the loss was due to the increase of imports caused by the lack of interest in protecting American manufacturers, largely beyond the control of Detroiters.

Since Detroit does not have the industries to draw people to it like what was once possible, what is it to do? Create new industries? Well, it hasn't even cleaned up the mess from the old ones (due to lack of financial resources). Detroit is filled with abandoned factories, many of which haven't been used in decades. Many old factory sites are contaminated.

Should people be forced at gunpoint to move into the city? Of course not. But could incentives be created to discourage outward growth? Yes.

You can look at it from the opposite viewpoint. Should people living in the already existing communities be "forced" to pay for all the new roads and sewers in the newly developed subdivisions? Should they be "forced" to clean up the mess left behind by the wealthier classes who can afford to move out?

I think people would move out of the region (or not move to it) if they had to live in the City of Detroit, because it has the worst schools in the country, some of the highest crime, and right now, effectively the citizens can't even try to change that because of an EM

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by btownboss4

I think people would move out of the region (or not move to it) if they had to live in the City of Detroit, because it has the worst schools in the country, some of the highest crime, and right now, effectively the citizens can't even try to change that because of an EM

That is quite true, but that would not be the case. People who would want to live at 23 Mile Road would not have to move Detroit. They could move anywhere in between 8 Mile Road and 23 Mile Road (or wherever the boundary would be). There are plenty of decent homes and neighborhoods there. However, someone who wants to live near 9 Mile Road might consider 7 Mile Road (this is assuming if all the housing north of 8 Mile becomes occupied).

I look at it this way: if the entire metro Detroit areas was one municipality instead of 130, then it would be very likely that we would have an UGB (or better yet: not need one). The reason we don't is because we all believe that as long as our own suburb is okay, the rest of the metro area can fend for itself. But this is not the case in reality; when one area deteriorates it brings the whole area down. And it should be said that the problem isn't exclusively the result of wealthy suburbanites not wanting to deal with Detroit; it's also a problem of Detroiters not wanting to give up their control of a "Black" city.

[us66]

Originally Posted by btownboss4

I think people would move out of the region (or not move to it) if they had to live in the City of Detroit, because it has the worst schools in the country, some of the highest crime, and right now, effectively the citizens can't even try to change that because of an EM

Not to mention ridiculous levels of taxation in the vast majority of the city, unless you're in an enterprise zone. The city income tax is a real buzzkill, too, when almost no other municipalities in SE MI have one. I wouldn't live in Detroit at this point in my life over that alone, even if it were the most happening city in America.