Why Not Move To Detroit? The Hype Isn't True. (Waterford: homeowners insurance, new house)

[dmetro]

Originally Posted by jeffncandace

This is a brilliant post that makes alot of very valid points! I agree that part of Detroit's problem has been the inability to annex it's suburbs. This is indeed how many other large cities with decaying infrastructures have survived and vastly improved themselves.

Yet, the divide here is greater than most, if not all, parts of America. Will the burbs allow it to happen?

NEVER!!!!!! Detroit should not be allowed to annex it's suburbs, or consolidate school districts. Why should these fine cities be burdened with Detroit's problem students? Eventually their wealthier residents would move on, and the suburbs would become as terrible as the city.

[BurtsBees]

Originally Posted by dmetro

NEVER!!!!!! Detroit should not be allowed to annex it's suburbs, or consolidate school districts. Why should these fine cities be burdened with Detroit's problem students? Eventually their wealthier residents would move on, and the suburbs would become as terrible as the city.

Its partly happening already. "Open enrollment" has caused some schools to take a nose dive. They bring in Detroit students, who for the most part end up just causing fights, rucus and other riff-raff on their way to the Smart bus stop. Im glad a few wised up and got rid of that right away.

[jeffncandace]

Originally Posted by dmetro

NEVER!!!!!! Detroit should not be allowed to annex it's suburbs, or consolidate school districts. Why should these fine cities be burdened with Detroit's problem students? Eventually their wealthier residents would move on, and the suburbs would become as terrible as the city.

If they HAD been allowed to decades ago, we would'nt be in the problem we are now. Lots of other cities did with better results than what we currently have to deal with. But yes, if it happened now, it would be disastrous.

[and the]

If they HAD been allowed to decades ago, we would'nt be in the problem we are now. Lots of other cities did with better results than what we currently have to deal with. But yes, if it happened now, it would be disastrous.

I worked for the City of Detroit under Coleman A. Youg, Mayor, decades ago. You're wrong.

People have a right to vote with their feet. The solution to white people fleeing Detroit after WWII, (and later, black people too) is not to throw the boundaries of the City of Detroit farther out than they are willing to run. If you tried that, they'd have to change the name of the City of Chicago to "Chicroit".

The answer to white flight, and now just plain, old "flight", is to make the City of Detroit appealing to those with children who are looking for a place to raise them. You don't do that by running the city soo poorly that residents must pay three times the amount of tax money for one third the amount of public service. You don't do it by forcing people to send their kids to private schools AND pay a huge school tax. You don't do it by alienating those who's investment in money, time and humanity you need the most. You don't do it by turning down a man willing to donate millions of dollars to build schools. In fact, you pretty much do it by looking at what the current leadership of the city is doing, and then doing the exact opposite!!

[jeffncandace]

Originally Posted by and the

I worked for the City of Detroit under Coleman A. Youg, Mayor, decades ago. You're wrong.

People have a right to vote with their feet. The solution to white people fleeing Detroit after WWII, (and later, black people too) is not to throw the boundaries of the City of Detroit farther out than they are willing to run. If you tried that, they'd have to change the name of the City of Chicago to "Chicroit".

The answer to white flight, and now just plain, old "flight", is to make the City of Detroit appealing to those with children who are looking for a place to raise them. You don't do that by running the city soo poorly that residents must pay three times the amount of tax money for one third the amount of public service. You don't do it by forcing people to send their kids to private schools AND pay a huge school tax. You don't do it by alienating those who's investment in money, time and humanity you need the most. You don't do it by turning down a man willing to donate millions of dollars to build schools. In fact, you pretty much do it by looking at what the current leadership of the city is doing, and then doing the exact opposite!!

I can agree with this statement. But from what I've heard, Coleman Young was guilty of many of the things you are decrying. I don't know myself since I haven't lived here that long, but my co-workers tell horror stories about his reign over the D.

[and the]

I can agree with this statement. But from what I've heard, Coleman Young was guilty of many of the things you are decrying. I don't know myself since I haven't lived here that long, but my co-workers tell horror stories about his reign over the D.

Coleman Young was just a hustler. So is Kwame, without Coleman's style. Coleman's nickname was "Bigtime Red". He got the "Red" due to his light complexion. The "Bigtime" came from the scams he used to pull growing up. He would print up a bunch of tickets to a show featuring big name bands, singers, etc. during his "Paradise Valley" days. Then he'd promote the show, sell the tickets and take off with the money...there was never any show booked. He kept that up his whole life, reference Kenny Weiner, the millions of dollars stolen from the police Secret Service Fund (Bill Hart was a fall guy for Coleman), the Krugerands.....denying his kid(s?) born out of wedlock (Joel Loving with Anivory Calvert), the trips to the Bahamas, and the list goes on and on. Detroit's decline is inevitable. There is no hope for Detroit to be as good as it was, even as late as the 80's, in my lifetime. I really don't think Kwame is any better, but at least Coleman was Kool. Just not Kool enough to keep me around.....

Read his autobiography, "Hard Stuff". It's entertaining and if you read between the lines, enlightening.
Amazon.com: Hard Stuff: The Autobiography of Mayor Coleman Young: Books: Coleman Young,Lonnie Wheeler

[elmoslg]

Originally Posted by Brother WilliamX

Hate is hate no matter how you look at it, but remember American history when it mentioned hanging,burning, and firebombing Churches in the South.

Thereforth its natural for Blacks to resent or hate after what happened. There is many Blacks in the South who is affaid of Jim Crow or should I be more blunt? Whereas here in the North its a whole new game. We have learned how to express our anger or resentment. Regardless to if its being hostle or having pure hate, if it don't apply then let it fly.

i have agreed with you many of your opinions until this one. I love Detroit. VIsit often and live just 3/4 north of the city. But to say that Blacks are justified in anger because of how they were treated is right? What about the Native Americans who were also forced from their homes. The Native Americans were rounded up, forced to live on reservations, women were raped, men were killed because they did not submit, and worst o fall, children were taken from their homes and families and sent to be Americanized. The idea being that if they did not learn the culture or language that the 'problem' of the Natives would go away. Or the Irish that were forced to live in one area because they were considered too poor and late arrivals to the new country? Can they also be angry and violent? What about the Cajuns in the south? For some time in the 30's, the French language was outlawed in schools an children were not allowed to use their native cajun dialect.
How about the European Jewish people that were killed, tortured, and beaten during the Holocaust?
I am not saying that Blacks should not be aware of their history, but they should be aware that they are not the only oppressed people. So far, the Native Americans are the only group of people I am aware of that are getting reparations. This opens up a whole other ball of wax but should it be that limited? Haven't many races been oppressed in some way or another?

[jeffncandace]

Originally Posted by elmoslg

i have agreed with you many of your opinions until this one. I love Detroit. VIsit often and live just 3/4 north of the city. But to say that Blacks are justified in anger because of how they were treated is right? What about the Native Americans who were also forced from their homes. The Native Americans were rounded up, forced to live on reservations, women were raped, men were killed because they did not submit, and worst o fall, children were taken from their homes and families and sent to be Americanized. The idea being that if they did not learn the culture or language that the 'problem' of the Natives would go away. Or the Irish that were forced to live in one area because they were considered too poor and late arrivals to the new country? Can they also be angry and violent? What about the Cajuns in the south? For some time in the 30's, the French language was outlawed in schools an children were not allowed to use their native cajun dialect.
How about the European Jewish people that were killed, tortured, and beaten during the Holocaust?
I am not saying that Blacks should not be aware of their history, but they should be aware that they are not the only oppressed people. So far, the Native Americans are the only group of people I am aware of that are getting reparations. This opens up a whole other ball of wax but should it be that limited? Haven't many races been oppressed in some way or another?

I totally agree with this post, but we need to get back on topic everyone.

Why not move to Detroit?

[elmoslg]

Originally Posted by jeffncandace

I totally agree with this post, but we need to get back on topic everyone.

Why not move to Detroit?

i can speak for myself only as to why we don't move to detroit. the homes on the river are beautiful but not kids friendly. we want a large yard for our kids to play in. the new lofts and townhomes give us the same quandry. we often joke about how in 30 years our kids will live in the city and ask why we didn't buy in when it was cheaper!
there are some gorgeous homes around woodward just north of comerica park that are being revitalized. we have checked into those but they are some time off of our being able to live there.
our kids get excited when we visit "downtown city" as they call it. they want to park and walk around. maybe when they are grown and gone, we will live there - if our social security affords us!
i see that you are fairly new to michigan and detroit - Welcome!

[jeffncandace]

Originally Posted by elmoslg

i can speak for myself only as to why we don't move to detroit. the homes on the river are beautiful but not kids friendly. we want a large yard for our kids to play in. the new lofts and townhomes give us the same quandry. we often joke about how in 30 years our kids will live in the city and ask why we didn't buy in when it was cheaper!
there are some gorgeous homes around woodward just north of comerica park that are being revitalized. we have checked into those but they are some time off of our being able to live there.
our kids get excited when we visit "downtown city" as they call it. they want to park and walk around. maybe when they are grown and gone, we will live there - if our social security affords us!
i see that you are fairly new to michigan and detroit - Welcome!

Thanks! Yeah, I have kids too so don't live there for the same reasons. We picked Royal Oak and really like it here.

My hope is that Detroit rebounds...along with the rest of the state!