Young, Archer, Kilpatrick... Cockrel? (Detroit: crimes, homes, neighborhoods)

[Paddington]

The names change. But does Detroit?

[Coldjensens]

Archer unquestionably changed Detroit. He gottired of fightiging everyone who seemed to not want improvement in their city (so I was told). Cockrel might be good too, if anyone will let him. They need to dump the rest of those nutjobs though if they are going to get anywhere. Fixing Detrot is a daunting enough job without a bunch of loons to g
fight with in the counsel

[MICoastieMom]

No doubt I am being eternally optimistic, but I have high hopes for Cockrel and Detroit.

[Bhaalspawn]

It's a daunting problem and I wish Cockrel the best of luck. I have no idea how to even begin to approach the problem of dealing with a dilapidated, run-down city with a huge impoverished third world underclass in a way that would be acceptable to people. Perhaps he could try to improve the downtown area and the university area, but beyond that I have no idea what even the best possible mayor could do.

How do you tell ignorant, uneducated masses not to have children they cannot afford to have in a way that would be acceptable to observers outside the city? How do you tell people who either don't have the economic resources needed to raise children nor the intellectual capacity needed to raise them properly not to breed? Maybe he could set up a free birth control and sterilization program combined with intense birth control education in the schools? (This might sound harsh, but I've always believed that having children when you cannot afford to have them is a guarantor of continued poverty that also increases the population of impoverished people as the children end up being poor too.)

[michiganirish]

Originally Posted by Bhaalspawn

It's a daunting problem and I wish Cockrel the best of luck. I have no idea how to even begin to approach the problem of dealing with a dilapidated, run-down city with a huge impoverished third world underclass in a way that would be acceptable to people. Perhaps he could try to improve the downtown area and the university area, but beyond that I have no idea what even the best possible mayor could do.

How do you tell ignorant, uneducated masses not to have children they cannot afford to have in a way that would be acceptable to observers outside the city? How do you tell people who either don't have the economic resources needed to raise children nor the intellectual capacity needed to raise them properly not to breed? Maybe he could set up a free birth control and sterilization program combined with intense birth control education in the schools? (This might sound harsh, but I've always believed that having children when you cannot afford to have them is a guarantor of continued poverty that also increases the population of impoverished people as the children end up being poor too.)

Holy Mackrel! That sure is a mouthful of old time rhetoric.

While you may have a point that having a family you can not support is not good for the social enviorment, not all Detroiter's are Welfare Mamas. Your statement refering to "the intellectual capacity" of the people of Detroit reads racism loud and clear.

There are a multitude of reason's for the condition of the city. Most of which is the antipathy of it's residents because of years and years of neglect. No one listen's to them, least of all those in power. Which suits the powers that be just fine because they can continue the rape of the city unchecked.

I believe however, that now is the chance that the citizens have been waiting for. Using a phrase from the sixties, "The whole world is watching." And if Detroit doesn't want to be taken over by the State of Michigan, the city big wigs will really have to watch their step.

Cleaning Detroit of drug crimes should be a priority. By removing the drug dealers easy access to abandoned homes etc... will eventually result in neighborhoods reviving themselves.

I don't always stick up for Detroit, the city often disappoints me, but your are way out of line.

BTW there a many new "improvements" in Detroit, perhaps not enough yet to satisfy your very suburban ideals but they are there.

[love_child7]

And if Detroit doesn't want to be taken over by the State of Michigan, the city big wigs will really have to watch their step.

What would be so wrong with a State taking over? I’m truly asking a question, this is not a challenge.

I have worked on city projects as a social worker and I can’t begin to tell you how frustrating it is to work with individuals who are totally incompetent. I can’t begin to tell you how many “band aids” I have seen go on major injuries. If you make your way into the nucleus of Detroit business, you will find that many have positions based off of who they know and not the capacity to do the job. The City’s problems may not get resolved until “all the covers come off” and it seems a State takeover may do just that… but again I don’t know the full implications of a State takeover, so if someone could enlighten me I would appreciate it.