Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but somewhere along the line turned into a discussion about Royal Oak as well simply because I'm somehow known for preaching about changes in demographics, crime and property maintenance in RO and very little otherwise.
Just a little perspective....Remisc makes a one-line comment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remisc
I laughed a little when I saw that the person who trashes Royal Oak on a daily base came to the defense of Hazel Park.
And [JS] is once again embarks on her 'Royal Oak sucks' crusade:
Quote:
Originally Posted by [JS]
I don't see how Royal Oak could be considered better in any way besides a portion of wealth distribution. Just because a place is wealthy does not mean it's a good community. It may work vice versa, but consider that many incomes for inner suburbs in Los Angeles - a place notorious for suburban ghettos - are often between $37,000 and $56,000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by [JS]
(In Hazel Park) there are some boarded up homes [due to foreclosure, mind you. not vacancy] and a couple houses here and there around the neighborhoods with some worn siding or windows with chipped paint, but it isn't like full on uncut lawns, trashed siding, rusty cars kind of deal like I find quite a bit in Royal Oak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by [JS]
Off of the top of my head I can think of quite a few cars parked on lawns on other streets.
To paraphrase [JS]'s list, there are about 15 examples where she claims that people always park their cars on their lawn. Most "examples" are either on a road where street parking is prohibited, some are examples that when I drove by didn't have cars parked on the lawns, and some were located right across the street from light industrial buildings - not exacty prime residential areas.
In Royal Oak it's not illegal to park on the lawn. Regardless of that, nearly all of the people who live in Royal Oak don't park on their lawns. A simple 30 minute drive through several neighborhoods will attest to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by [JS]
If that doesn't prove my point...
Actually, cherry picking 15 supposed examples out of an entire city doesn't make [JS]'s point, except perhaps that she doesn't get around all of Royal Oak very much. And these supposed examples of lawn-parking doesn't prove her contention of "changes in demographics, crime and property maintenance" - changes I assume must be for the worse.
But just for argument's sake, let's suppose [JS] does document about 50 examples of 'lawn parking', 'rusty cars', 'trashed siding' and 'unmowed lawns' - and she provides pictures and GPS coordinates and signed affidavits from a Royal Oak code enforcement officer verifying the authenticity of each claim. This still won't prove Royal Oak to be a 'suburban ghetto' ([JS]'s term).
According to 2000 census information Royal Oak has about 60,000 people and about 28,000 households. According to the Michigan Public Sex Offender Registry there are currently 64 people living in Royal Oak who are registered sex offenders.
64 registered sex offenders living in a city of 60,0000 doesn't make every one in Royal Oak a sex offender and 50 examples of unmowed lawns, trashed siding, and lawn-parked cars in a city of 28,000 households certainly doesn't make the entire city of Royal Oak a ghetto.
First of all, I'm a guy. If I were a girl, I'd probably love Royal Oak because I'd most likely barely ever leave Downtown like most teenage girls here.
Second, I never used the term "suburban ghetto" to describe Royal Oak. I used it to describe many parts of the Los Angeles suburbs, which are worse than Royal Oak, that have high income levels in order to prove a point that just because a place has an income in the $40/$50ks doesn't mean that it's necessarily a good community. Oak Park and Southfield are some of the primest examples there are.
The whole thing with lawn parking seems to come and go in trends sometimes. This week it isn't too strong. I'm sure next week it will be right back to normal.
And again with the "street parking" excuse. Do you think I'm that dumb as to not think of that? These houses have driveways, and most either have garages or parking lots (for apartments). 9 times out of 10, the driveway's either empty or has one car in it. Even if the driveway was full, on most of these streets there's still enough room to fit another car at the end of the driveway out front between the road and the sidewalk.
But let's just think rationally for a second here. Those 15 examples were just ones that I could get off of the top of my head sitting here in my armchair staring at the screen. If I were to actually spend a considerable amount of time going through the neighborhoods and photographing all the cars on the lawns, all the trash thrown about, the rusty cars, the blighted factories, even suburban trailers; then I would have quite a portfolio to display infront of everyone who makes the choice to read my posts.
Also, define what you consider light industrial. If we have the same definition of the term, then we're definitely on the wrong page here considering most of Metro Detroit is scattered with light industry. By my definitions of light and heavy industry, there are also quite a few heavy industry parks in Royal Oak on top of the fact that most main streets in the city have many light industrial buildings in the first place.
Back to parking on the lawn though, take the south for example. The south is connected to rednecks, poverty, war, pickup trucks and front porches by basically everybody. Well, the south is a pretty poor place - you live in a good community if households make more than $30,000 a year. The south caused the civil war by refusing to give up their slaves. But the one thing that's still less obvious is lawn parking. People in the south use their driveways and streets too. In a window of 60,000 people down south that are in a place comparable to Royal Oak (e.g. not a full on trailer park, not a heavily blighted ghetto such as East Birmingham (AL) or 9th Ward), but a notably poorly maintained neighborhood in any setting, be it rural or urban; you would probably find no more than 25 individual homes where a vehicle is on the grass.
Your proportions would make sense if we were talking a more common issue in any community such as crime, but seeing as lawn parking and blight are a more toned down thing basically anywhere, it's somewhat irrelevant.
[JS], my points still stand. You're a 16 year old boy with access to a computer who is trying to tell me about a city that I've known for more than twice as long as you've been alive.
Lawn parking seems to be a personal issue with you, as you mentioned it TWICE in your last post. So what if a 50 homes out of 20,000 have cars parked on them? This shows that you have no idea about what I was talking about - antedotal evidence does not prove the rule.
Not comparing Royal Oak to a suburban ghetto? You stated that Royal Oak was like Los Angeles suburbs of the same income levels, then stated that some of those same L.A. suburbs were ghettos; that's a veiled implication that Royal Oak is a ghetto.
Light industrial versus heavy industrial? Not only is this a non sequitor to the discussion at hand, but light industrial is a legal term used by zoning boards. There are no different opinions about these terms - they are legal definitions not open to interpretation.
As for your last paragraph, what the heck are you talking about? The South = rednecks, poverty, war, pickups, front porches and slavery but at least they don't park on their lawns? Seriously? I think that says a heck of a lot more about you than it does about Royal Oak. My own personal read of that paragraph is that you have a lot of issues with your immediate neighbors and are projecting your dislike of a neighborhood street onto a city of 60,000 people.
known for more than twice as long as you've been alive.
And it was alot nicer back then. It's gotten worse within the past five years for sure. If it was as nice as it was 5-10 years ago, I'd be one of the nay-sayers of the people who don't like Royal Oak because if it were how it was back then they would have no reason to.
With the last paragraph I'm saying that even in a place notorious for it, it's not that common of an occurance where 15-20 is a low number for a place with a population of 60,000, be it urban or rural.
As for the suburban ghetto thing, once again, that's NOT what I'm implying. My point is that a middle-high income place isn't always a good area, and it can range anywhere from slightly below average to a full-on ghetto like those in Los Angeles. I was not implying that Royal Oak is a suburban ghetto, but just that there are quite a few examples where income doesn't reflect a city.
I live on one of the nicer blocks in my neighborhood though. I only have problems with one of my immediate neighbors because their house is abandoned. I don't have a problem with my street. I don't have a problem with my neighborhood. I have a problem with alot of neighborhoods. In Royal Oak. Because they're crap.
And it was alot nicer back then. It's gotten worse within the past five years for sure. If it was as nice as it was 5-10 years ago, I'd be one of the nay-sayers of the people who don't like Royal Oak because if it were how it was back then they would have no reason to.
Except that it's still your unsupported opinion. Every time you're pressed for actual proof, you google up a few pictures of shacks by the rail road tracks and some cars parked on lawns. And each time, we say in response "so what"? What do 15 examples prove in a city the size of Royal Oak?
Quote:
Originally Posted by [JS]
With the last paragraph I'm saying that even in a place notorious for it, it's not that common of an occurance where 15-20 is a low number for a place with a population of 60,000, be it urban or rural.
Not that common of an occurrence makes a place notorious for that occurrence?
So an incidence of 20 out of 20,000, an occurrence of one tenth of one percent is proof that the place is notorious for the occurrence? For an act (parking a vehicle on a lawn) that's not even illegal? Notorious?
Do you not really see the logical disconnect here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by [JS]
As for the suburban ghetto thing, once again, that's NOT what I'm implying.
Fox News would be proud of you, [JS].
See how implication works? You don't actually call someone a name, you just add an unsavory association, which provides plausible deniability later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by [JS]
I live on one of the nicer blocks in my neighborhood though. I only have problems with one of my immediate neighbors because their house is abandoned. I don't have a problem with my street. I don't have a problem with my neighborhood. I have a problem with alot of neighborhoods. In Royal Oak. Because they're crap.
So...just how does one determine in a city of nearly 60,000 people that "a lot of neighborhoods" are "crap". Just exactly (aside from parked cars and a few shacks) makes a neighborhood "crap"?
And how does one "know that it (Royal Oak) was alot nicer back then"? Back 5 years ago, as an 11 year old child? Back 30 years ago, before you even existed?
Is it sort of like how you know now, simply because you say so?
And now places in Kentucky (and other states) might need to be referred to as "Little Michigan." Since people have fled your state in such large numbers.
[JS], your admission that you're only 16 years old leads me to chalk up your persistence in this fiction as teen-age angst. I think that when you're in your 20's you will find that there's a lot to like about Royal Oak.
That's true. If I were 16 and growing up somewhere in MI, Royal Oak would be at the top of my list - knowing what I know now.
I mean, to me, it is kind of hip, as far as MI goes...still quite safe. There is a downtown that is actually walkable and pedestrian-friendly (unusual for suburbs), etc.
I grew up in rural small town MI though...so the ritzy wealthy areas would be way out of my price range - and way outside of my interests of the kind of people I'd like to be around.
Royal Oak is somewhat of an epicenter for educated people with a slight creative bent, who aren't interested in being 100% car-centric existances into their adult life. It is also reasonably affordable that you don't need a six income job to live there either. Nice combination in my opinion.
See, this is the common misconception I see with people when talking about Royal Oak. When people talk about Royal Oak, they immediately think of Downtown. Big brick houses, pedestrians everywhere, upscale shops, people socializing, live music. That's not Royal Oak though!
The actual non-Downtown area, aka. the actual city, is rarely walked and far from bikeable. Infact, it is and has to be car-centric because of the lack of actual retail and services on main roads. The only main road I can think of that does not have significant residential partitions outside of Downtown is Woodward.
I agree it is reasonably affordable, but six figure income is pushing it extremely. From what I've seen in real estate trends in the metro, if I were the realtor, I would price for a maximum of $90,000. Most of the city is ranch houses. Some of them may look fancy because they're done in brick, but I'm more than sure if brick actually required maintenence besides occasional washing that they would not look anywhere near good condition. Look at the siding along the sides of houses that only have brick facades. Worn out and in desperate need of a paintjob.
The Vinsetta area, I wouldn't even guess would have six figure incomes. Maybe around $85,000. Six figure incomes are only the top 5th (5%) percentile of incomes. Incomes under $50,000 make up 60%. Incomes under $40,000 make up 49%. Household incomes, not per capita.
Like I've said before though, just because a place has a medium income doesn't mean it's a nice community though. Not at all.
Those sound alot like the numbers for Warren. Don't people absolutely hate Warren? And not just the 8 Mile quarter, but all of it. Let's summarize 'bad' Warren neighborhoods though:
There's some lawn parking. Usually an admixture of brick and sided houses. Pickup trucks, old cars (K-Cars, Caprices, Cadillacs etc.) are common. There are unruly lawns, not to the point of blight, but overdue for a cut/weedwacking. Both are often located near some sort of industry, considering they're very common in both cities.
Well those are surely similarities between both cities. They're both full of neighborhoods on the fence that are just hidden behind brick and stone. Royal Oak has the advantage of having a very successful Downtown and some small neighborhoods that are seen as pockets of wealth, and that's what people who don't actually live here fail to realize.
I'll agree that certain portions of Royal Oak are a little over-hyped, such as the southeast corner of the city, but on the whole, it's a far more desirable place than most of Warren. I think the perception of wealth in Royal Oak comes from two things: people from other areas coming in in their luxury cars and spending money on Woodward and in downtown, and some upscale-looking businesses. Royal Oak isn't a rich city, that's Birmingham's job. It just has the bohemian image and compared to other places that have nearly identical housing (Madison Heights, Warren, Center Line) it has image. These other cities were built around the same time but time has been far kinder to Royal Oak, in character and public image both. Like some other poster on here said the other day, people go to Royal Oak thinking it's Greenwich Village or something. It's not, but here in this flyover state of Michigan, it's all we have.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
