Good article on Detroits population loss. (Oak Park, Atlanta: crime, loans, homes)

[Indentured Servant]

I think this article gives a VERY accurate analysis of what has happened to Detroit. I agree with 98% of the article, with my only disagreement being their omission of the role the housing bubble played, but the mobility could not have been achieved if people were not allowed to qualify for homes...or bigger homes like never before....or at least not since the 50's, due to the housing bubble.

Let me also say that I do not believe that Detroit black population and total population dropped by that much. That is not to say that I don't believe that Detroit population is 714,000. I don't know. What I do know is that there was an adjustment made, due to cities suing, to the population count of Detroit for the 2000 enumeration, due to an undercount of minorities. I think Detroit count was adjusted up 58,000 people. In other words, Detroits actual count was 58,000 less than what became reported as Detroit population. The 2010 enumeration did not include that adjustment formula. Thus, Detroit population lost 58,000 just due to cities not having their counts adjusted. Secondly, in 2000 there was a massive effort by the city to get people counted and aware of the importance of getting everyone counted. I am not sure how many more people were counted because of those efforts, but I am sure that thousands of more people participated because of it. Counting is not an exact science. Some People have to want to participate to be counted. Thus, its possible and maybe even probable that Detroit's count lost about 100,000 people simply due to things done in the previous census count not being doing for this one.

That having been said, many of the factors that led to a massive decline of blacks the last decade do not exist to the same degree anymore. Many places in the South, particularly Atlanta, that was attracting a lot of blacks from Detroit, has fizzled out. Georgia and other Southern states that were booming while Michigan's economy was in free fall, don't offer the opportunities that they once did that pulled people away. There is no longer a one state recession where the grass is actually so much greener outside of Michigan. In fact, some blacks are moving back from earlier moves to those places. Plus, Michigan's economy has stabalized and now growing with an auto industry core that shed many of the problems that plauged in the last 4 decades, in regards to union and legacy cost. So the state and economy is now on more solid foundation than it has been in many decades.

The housing bubble has burst. The housing bubble, with its relaxed lending standards and low interest loans for those who qualified, shifted the populationn outward from the core as every strata shifted "UP" from their previous position in living environment. That shift opened up many older suburbs to blacks like never before. That shift is over with as the market has collapsed and people cannot qualify for no down payment loans and no reported income loans. In other words, its much harder to qualify for homes than it was a few years back....much, much harder. Thus, people are not going to be moving as much this decade. Blacks will continue to have opportunity to move to suburbs that many blacks moved to in the last decade, because whites will flee those areas and the housing prices will drop which will make it more affordable for the poor.

Keep in mind that Detroit black population grew up until 2001. Hence, I believe that the 2000's was an anomaly. I believe that extrapolating from the last decade and assuming those trends will continue is dead wrong. I think it will go back to the pattern that existed prior to 2000. I predict that the 2020 census will show about 650,000 blacks in the city of Detroit, up from the 590,000 reported the last census and down from the 790,000 of the 2000 census. That assumes that the mayor during the next enumeration will go all out to get out the count. It does not include a formula adjustment like the 2000 census had added. I also predict an increase in the white population of the city for the first time, mostly from growth in the core, like Midtown and downtown. Detroit 2020 population count, I hypothesize, will be between 700,000 and 750,000. I think the city is still declining now, but will start gaining pop around 2016. I also predict that Detroit will get a massive aid package to bailout the city........if the current adminstration stays in office.....

[TBideon]

Cleveland (where I'm from originally) got nailed pretty hard to in that census, I think at 17%. That's just mind boggling.

[Indentured Servant]

Jack Nicholson - You can't handle the truth - YouTube

[Retroit]

I disagree completely that this was a one decade phenomenon. Blacks were moving out before 2000 and they will continue to move out.

I also find it ironic that in another thread you just started, you claimed that the media was overdramatizing, yet you failed to grasp the overdramatization of this article.

With all due respect to Mr. Sugrue, he is failing to understand that it is not remarkable that blacks are moving from the city proper to the inner ring of suburbs. That should be a pretty obvious principle of migration. What is remarkable is that blacks are also moving to the outer suburbs and to wealthy, well-kept suburbs. This to me should have been the "newsworthy story" of his article.

[Indentured Servant]

Originally Posted by Retroit

I disagree completely that this was a one decade phenomenon. Blacks were moving out before 2000 and they will continue to move out.

wow really.....I never knew that blacks moved to the suburbs before 2000, despite some of my friends moving to Oak Park in the 90's. Thanks Retroit....you are source of enlightenment. Without your input, I would never have a keen grasp of the obvious.

I also find it ironic that in another thread you just started, you claimed that the media was overdramatizing, yet you failed to grasp the overdramatization of this article.

Indeed I have failed to graps the over dramatization of the article.

With all due respect to Mr. Sugrue, he is failing to understand that it is not remarkable that blacks are moving from the city proper to the inner ring of suburbs. That should be a pretty obvious principle of migration. What is remarkable is that blacks are also moving to the outer suburbs and to wealthy, well-kept suburbs. This to me should have been the "newsworthy story" of his article.

In other words, you want him to focus on the exception to the rule, rather than the rule.

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by Indentured Servant

wow really.....I never knew that blacks moved to the suburbs before 2000, despite some of my friends moving to Oak Park in the 90's. Thanks Retroit....you are source of enlightenment. Without your input, I would never have a keen grasp of the obvious.

I should have said: "I disagree completely that this was a one decade phenomenon. Blacks were moving out in great numbers before 2000 and they will continue to move out in great numbers."

In other words, you want him to focus on the exception to the rule, rather than the rule.

Yes, I think that is more newsworthy. I know you have a different view of "news". For example, you think that all the good things happening in Detroit is news, whereas most people think that the bad things are news. But why iterate that 700,000 people in Detroit were not the victim of crime today, when people are really interested in the few that were?

Likewise, why state the obvious, that people generally move outward from the inner city to the next available area of suitable housing? To me, it is much more interesting that blacks have accepted the mobility to move anywhere they want.

[Indentured Servant]

Originally Posted by Retroit

I should have said: "I disagree completely that this was a one decade phenomenon. Blacks were moving out in great numbers before 2000 and they will continue to move out in great numbers."

I am talking percentages.....not numbers. When you are dealing with hundreds of thousands of people.....great numbers can translate into small percentages. The FACT remains, however, that Detroit black population grew every decade except the last one. So something happened dramatic in the last decade that did not before.

Yes, I think that is more newsworthy. I know you have a different view of "news". For example, you think that all the good things happening in Detroit is news, whereas most people think that the bad things are news. But why iterate that 700,000 people in Detroit were not the victim of crime today, when people are really interested in the few that were?

That sounds to me that what you are saying is that rare things should be reported more than common things. In other words, news is exeptions to the rule....which make it news worthy. If this is the case then people should realize that crime is not rampant.....because if it was it would not be news worthy.

Likewise, why state the obvious, that people generally move outward from the inner city to the next available area of suitable housing? To me, it is much more interesting that blacks have accepted the mobility to move anywhere they want.

Only if one dismisses the role of racism and discrimination.

[movestoomuch]

Originally Posted by Retroit

I disagree completely that this was a one decade phenomenon. Blacks were moving out before 2000 and they will continue to move out.

I also find it ironic that in another thread you just started, you claimed that the media was overdramatizing, yet you failed to grasp the overdramatization of this article.

With all due respect to Mr. Sugrue, he is failing to understand that it is not remarkable that blacks are moving from the city proper to the inner ring of suburbs. That should be a pretty obvious principle of migration. What is remarkable is that blacks are also moving to the outer suburbs and to wealthy, well-kept suburbs. This to me should have been the "newsworthy story" of his article.

Agreed. Tell people the positive things that are happening. That many people are making enough money to move to the wealthier suburbs is something I'd project. It's like saying, "Move here and you too can have all this." Other cities do it all the time.

[MS313]

One thing I have to say... I highly HIGHLY doubt Detroit will lose another 25% again. And if people can keep revitalizing areas of Detroit quickly, keep the economy stable, and promote and diversify in other fields other than manufacturing, Detroit could possibly see a reverse in population or at least a very slow decline.

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by MarvinStrong313

One thing I have to say... I highly HIGHLY doubt Detroit will lose another 25% again. And if people can keep revitalizing areas of Detroit quickly, keep the economy stable, and promote and diversify in other fields other than manufacturing, Detroit could possibly see a reverse in population or at least a very slow decline.

There are a low of "ifs" in that post.

And do note, 98% of the city's population lives in areas that continue to rapidly decline. I'm also hearing a fair number of residents have also stopped paying their taxes to evaluate what's going to happen in the near future and weigh their options. Also note, Detroit has to develop a economy before it can stabilize. I mean yeah, the Big 3 are doing better, but they have a long way to go before we can return to even 1990s-esque prosperity. And until we have a healthy big 3 to develop off of, it'll be quite hard to diversify the economy.

So Detroit's more likely to decline another 25% than grow 1% (take that how you like).

And I haven't even factored in the impact of the severe austerity measures (to the brittle bones we're already operating on) that will be coming very soon as well. People are sick of having to accept third world-esque services for a first world prices (high taxes), especially when they can move to a nearby suburb, or better yet, an entirely different city, and expect way more services for way less in taxes.