Out-of-the-box solutions for Detroit. (Pontiac, Charlotte: new home, schools, universities)

[belleislerunner]

I've never yet met someone who didn't determine their own fate based off their life choices.

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by belleislerunner

I've never yet met someone who didn't determine their own fate based off their life choices.

I wasn't speaking of individuals, but of a community of people? What if a majority people living in an area want to change something in their community, but they are prevented from doing so by some arbitrary law passed long ago and no longer tenable? More specifically, should all the people of Detroit be forced to wallow in stagnation or decay until the growth in downtown reaches them miles away? Should they be forced to wait for the trickle-down economic effect to play out?

[belleislerunner]

A community of people is nothing more than a sum of individuals.

If the majority of people want to change a law they can vote for lawmakers to change it or do so via referendum. Or show up at city council meetings.

Maybe we're arguing the same point - but I see nothing oppressive that keeps people in any parts of Detroit from enacting change. If so, I'd be curious what those tension points/hurdles are.

[memph]

So there's already a couple smaller communities/suburbs that are mostly black, and low income, similar to Detroit. Notably Highland Park, and I guess also Ecorse. Inkster too although the housing stock is a bit less old.

Outside metro Detroit you have suburbs of Cleveland, St Louis and Chicago that are similar.

I'm not really familiar with most of these communities since they're pretty small, but are there any that you would say serve as positive role models?

Anyways, what seems likely to happen is that the more struggling areas will struggle even more. The areas with the lowest incomes and lowest population densities (i.e. most infrastructure to maintain per resident). Denser, wealthier areas like Bagley will probably want to break off from the city as soon as possible, leaving the downtown to take care of the worse off "suburbs" and leaving less for the downtown area to spend on itself.

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by memph

I'm not really familiar with most of these communities since they're pretty small, but are there any that you would say serve as positive role models?

Here is a list of suburbs with more than 10% blacks:

Highland Park 93.5%
Detroit 82.7%
Inkster 73.2%
Southfield 70.3%
Lathrup Village 61.2%
Oak Park 57.4%
Pontiac 52.1%
River Rouge 50.5%
Ecorse 46.4%
Harper Woods 45.6%
Romulus 43.0%
Eastpointe 29.5%
Mt. Clemens 24.8%
Hamtramck 19.3%
Auborn Hills 18.5%
Farmington Hills 17.4%
Westland 17.2%
Wayne 17.1%
New Haven Village 16.9%
Taylor 15.8%
Warren 13.5%
Centerline 12.0%
Roseville 11.8%
Farmington 11.4%
Melvindale 11.3%
Grosse Pointe Park 10.5%

I may have missed a few.

Highland Park (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

I really don't think it's a matter of finding black role models though. Any suburb that is well run, black or white, should serve as a role model. I think the ones with part time mayor and council would be the best examples. Also as mentioned above, I think the council-manager form of government is preferred over mayor-council as it has virtually no mayor-council conflicts that are so common in Detroit. In council-manager forms of government, the mayor has practically equal powers with each council person and the city's day-to-day business is over-seen by a hired non-politician manager.

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by belleislerunner

A community of people is nothing more than a sum of individuals.

If the majority of people want to change a law they can vote for lawmakers to change it or do so via referendum. Or show up at city council meetings.

Maybe we're arguing the same point - but I see nothing oppressive that keeps people in any parts of Detroit from enacting change. If so, I'd be curious what those tension points/hurdles are.

Well, what you say is true, but as a practical matter it isn't that easy. Most Detroiters probably feel very distant from what goes on at city hall. In a small suburb, the city hall is just a few miles away. In Detroit it could be several miles, then you have to find a parking spot and pay for parking, or take a few long bus rides with transfers, etc. In the suburbs, you can approach your mayor or council person and talk about your particular issue. I doubt that happens much in Detroit. If you have a problem in the suburbs, someone from city hall can jump in their car be on scene in minutes. In Detroit, they'll put you on the list and wait till they get a call from Channel 2,4 or 7.

[memph]

I guess you might still need a small amount of government for services that should be provided at the city level like transit? You can't really have a dozen transit systems for the city.

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by memph

I guess you might still need a small amount of government for services that should be provided at the city level like transit? You can't really have a dozen transit systems for the city.

True. There should be only one transit system for the metro area. Currently there is DDOT (Detroit Department of Transportation - Detroit Department of Transportation | City of Detroit | www.detroitmi.gov) in Detroit and SMART (Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation - https://www.smartbus.org/About/Our-Organization ) in the suburbs. I think there is a SMART line that goes all the way down Gratiot to downtown Detroit and there may be others, but they are mostly separated. I think it would make more sense to combine them. This would be more likely to be done under my scheme than with the current Detroit-suburban standstill.

There would also be other regional services. Water service would be under the Great Lakes Water Authority currently being developed ( Great Lakes Water Authority | City of Detroit | www.detroitmi.gov ) whereby the water treatment is controlled by the authority and each city is responsible for maintaining their own pipes.

Garbage would be similarly coordinated, much like it is done in South Macomb with SMDA (South Macomb Disposal Authority) where the authority handles landfill agreements but each city is responsible for the garbage collection within their city (or they can contract it out).

I think that if there were more sub-units in Detroit, there would be more opportunities for coordination with the suburbs. As it is now the suburbs simply don't want to deal with Detroit because it is too big in proportion to the suburbs.

[Indentured Servant]

Originally Posted by Retroit

Ouch. Don't poor people have some kind of right to live in a half-way decent neighborhood? At least that is what I keep hearing from the left. Are you saying that the poor are just going to live with whatever left-overs the world has left them? Downtown gets first dibs, the poor residents have to wait their turn? Why not empower them and allow them to determine their own fate?

I think the poor people of Detroit will benefit from improved city services as a result of a growing middle class and corporate tax base. I do not know why that would not be the case. I just don't think it is the role of the city to solve issues of entrenched black poverty. That is a role that the Federal government and to a lesser degree state governments need to address (but are not) because its an issue that the NATION CREATED and cities inherited....because that issue is not unique to the Detroit area....but rather....all over.

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by Indentured Servant

I think the poor people of Detroit will benefit from improved city services as a result of a growing middle class and corporate tax base. I do not know why that would not be the case.

It will...eventually. But is there not a quicker solution? I think it will take decades/generations for enough middle class people and corporations to move into the city for the outlying areas to benefit.

I just don't think it is the role of the city to solve issues of entrenched black poverty. That is a role that the Federal government and to a lesser degree state governments need to address (but are not) because its an issue that the NATION CREATED and cities inherited....because that issue is not unique to the Detroit area....but rather....all over.

I agree. I think there should be a massive program by the nation, states, and/or, ideally, by metropolitan regions/authorities to clean up the inner cities. Kind of like how the EPA's Superfund cleans up hazardous waste cites. The only time money is spent to clean up a city is if it is hit by a natural disaster. But what about a natural disaster that is caused by humans? Aren't humans part of nature?

Unfortunately, government assistance to poor individuals doesn't seem to generate positive results long term. In fact, it seems to make them more dependent thus ensuring their poverty. But I would be in favor of my federal or state tax dollars being used to demolish abandoned properties in Detroit and bringing them up to development standards.

One method for achieving this -- going along with the premise of this thread for thinking outside the box -- would be for the creation of a metropolitan authority that would include all populated land in the city and extend out maybe 20 miles beyond that. The authority would impose a tax on all new homes built. The tax would vary from year to year depending on the rate of home occupancy in the metro area. When there is a lot of abandonment, the "new house tax" would be raised to discourage building. When occupancy levels rise, the tax would come down. Homebuilders would initially squawk at this, but it will actually benefit them by reducing the boom-bust cycle.

All the revenue generated by this tax would be used to demolish abandoned home that are no longer salvageable. Once that is nearing completion, the tax money could start to be used to rehabilitate the most salvageable properties.