Out-of-the-box solutions for Detroit. (Eastpointe, Hazel Park: appointed, 2014, city hall)
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.
I'm getting tired of all the blaming going on (I admit, I myself am guilty) and was wondering if anyone is interested in brainstorming how Detroit can be improved? Creativity will be required, and all criticisms must supply an alternative method to any ideas that are criticized. "That will never work" is not acceptable!
Here's my idea: divide the city up into 10 to 20 approximately equally sized areas (7-13 sq. mi. and 30,000-70,000 residents). Each area will have one high school, 2-3 middle schools, 1/2 dozen elementary schools, one police department, 1-4 fire stations, one library, etc. The current resources of the city would be divvied up among the areas. Each will be given an administrator/manager and a small staff. The administrator could be appointed by the mayor and/or council, or elected by the people within the area. The revenue of the whole city would be divided among the areas in proportion to the number of residents within each area. The administrator would be responsible for all expenses within his/her area. The Mayor and Council of Detroit would be responsible for oversight and audit of each area. Each area would be responsible for the infrastructure in their area. They would each have their own water department responsible for maintaining the pipes but would use the same water system (like the suburbs). They could keep garbage collection in house or contract it out. They would also be responsible for negotiating future contracts with employees, although all initial employee contracts will reflect the current ones as much as possible.
What this would provide is competition. Each area would have to compete with each other to draw/retain residents and businesses. Over time (maybe 10-20 years), the revenue would switch from being provided by the city to being kept within whichever area the revenue was generated. This would have to be phased in over time to give time to those areas that are largely abandoned to re-develop a residential and commercial base.
Because this scheme would alleviate the large staffing needs from City Hall, employment in the City Hall would be frozen immediately. City Hall employees could interview for position in the area administrations or find work in the private sector. Every year or two, one floor of City Hall will be cleared out and rented out to private companies. A greatly reduced staff will remain downtown to oversee the areas.
Eventually, each area will have an opportunity to incorporate as its own city. The form of government would be Council-Manager and not Mayor-Council ( CouncilMayor ). Certain criteria must be met to ensure viability. Perhaps at a minimum of every 10 years, another area could be spun off. Potentially, all that would remain of Detroit would be the area that encompassed downtown and Midtown. However, some or all of the areas may choose not to break off. The residents in each area would have to approve of independence by a majority of 67%, not a simple 50% majority. The downtown area would not be eligible for independence (unless of course all the other areas break off).
The advantages of this:
Smaller areas = smaller budgets = easier to manage = less corruption = less money being misused
Smaller areas = more possibility for participation among resident in those areas = more accountability among the residents within those areas
More competition = more creativity in coming up with solutions = better change of success than doing things the way they've always been done, which obviously isn't working
These areas would in effect become suburbs and would have the same advantages that suburbs do.
Outsiders would be more willing to move into Detroit if they weren't actually moving into Detroit, but rather one of these new subdivided areas.
The outlying areas which border the suburbs would be able to coordinate services and revenue generation. This is going to be more common among the suburbs to overcome the state restrictions to raising property taxes (Proposal A of 1994 and the Headley Amendment of 1978), as Eastpointe and Hazel Park are attempting to do ( Eastpointe/Hazel Park propose partnership to fund police/fire ).
When trying to draw investment, the newly independent areas could distance themselves from the tarnished/destroyed image of "Detroit"
I was hoping that the change of election of council persons from "at large" to "by district" would encourage more of this type of thinking, but it doesn't appear to be so. Something more ambitious must be tried.
Any other ideas or criticisms (with possible alternatives)?
I'm getting tired of all the blaming going on (I admit, I myself am guilty) and was wondering if anyone is interested in brainstorming how Detroit can be improved? Creativity will be required, and all criticisms must supply an alternative method to any ideas that are criticized. "That will never work" is not acceptable!
Here's my idea: divide the city up into 10 to 20 approximately equally sized areas (7-13 sq. mi. and 30,000-70,000 residents). Each area will have one high school, 2-3 middle schools, 1/2 dozen elementary schools, one police department, 1-4 fire stations, one library, etc. The current resources of the city would be divvied up among the areas. Each will be given an administrator/manager and a small staff. The administrator could be appointed by the mayor and/or council, or elected by the people within the area. The revenue of the whole city would be divided among the areas in proportion to the number of residents within each area. The administrator would be responsible for all expenses within his/her area. The Mayor and Council of Detroit would be responsible for oversight and audit of each area. Each area would be responsible for the infrastructure in their area. They would each have their own water department responsible for maintaining the pipes but would use the same water system (like the suburbs). They could keep garbage collection in house or contract it out. They would also be responsible for negotiating future contracts with employees, although all initial employee contracts will reflect the current ones as much as possible.
What this would provide is competition. Each area would have to compete with each other to draw/retain residents and businesses. Over time (maybe 10-20 years), the revenue would switch from being provided by the city to being kept within whichever area the revenue was generated. This would have to be phased in over time to give time to those areas that are largely abandoned to re-develop a residential and commercial base.
Because this scheme would alleviate the large staffing needs from City Hall, employment in the City Hall would be frozen immediately. City Hall employees could interview for position in the area administrations or find work in the private sector. Every year or two, one floor of City Hall will be cleared out and rented out to private companies. A greatly reduced staff will remain downtown to oversee the areas.
Eventually, each area will have an opportunity to incorporate as its own city. The form of government would be Council-Manager and not Mayor-Council ( CouncilMayor ). Certain criteria must be met to ensure viability. Perhaps at a minimum of every 10 years, another area could be spun off. Potentially, all that would remain of Detroit would be the area that encompassed downtown and Midtown. However, some or all of the areas may choose not to break off. The residents in each area would have to approve of independence by a majority of 67%, not a simple 50% majority. The downtown area would not be eligible for independence (unless of course all the other areas break off).
The advantages of this:
Smaller areas = smaller budgets = easier to manage = less corruption = less money being misused
Smaller areas = more possibility for participation among resident in those areas = more accountability among the residents within those areas
More competition = more creativity in coming up with solutions = better change of success than doing things the way they've always been done, which obviously isn't working
These areas would in effect become suburbs and would have the same advantages that suburbs do.
Outsiders would be more willing to move into Detroit if they weren't actually moving into Detroit, but rather one of these new subdivided areas.
The outlying areas which border the suburbs would be able to coordinate services and revenue generation. This is going to be more common among the suburbs to overcome the state restrictions to raising property taxes (Proposal A of 1994 and the Headley Amendment of 1978), as Eastpointe and Hazel Park are attempting to do ( Eastpointe/Hazel Park propose partnership to fund police/fire ).
When trying to draw investment, the newly independent areas could distance themselves from the tarnished/destroyed image of "Detroit"
I was hoping that the change of election of council persons from "at large" to "by district" would encourage more of this type of thinking, but it doesn't appear to be so. Something more ambitious must be tried.
Any other ideas or criticisms (with possible alternatives)?
Here is my idea. Get some high powered business leaders to start reinvesting in the city. Also, the city must get rid of its paralyzing legacy cost. It should start building from the core outward.....as that is how Detroit originally grew.
u cant do it with a clever flip an app or a refi.
the heart of the people must change
u can do it
its not blame its awakening. and its love
the founding fathers of detroit built up a car biz from nothing, talented musicians built up motown from nothing. u can do it.
i am invested, i got family there.
u cant do it with a clever flip an app or a refi.
the heart of the people must change
u can do it
its not blame its awakening. and its love
the founding fathers of detroit built up a car biz from nothing, talented musicians built up motown from nothing. u can do it.
i am invested, i got family there.
Yep....I do not think it requires anything special. I am optimistic that the turn around will accelerate once people start gaining confidence that things have indeed turned around....then a hell of a lot of people are going to want to take part in the turn around and there will be a lot of money to be made because things will be much cheaper for those who are ahead of the curve.
I think you got to get the Bankers on board and be willing to fund development and they want to see solid demand and return on investment. The banks are not willing to initiate the comeback because the banks are coming off a period of many bad loans and risky investments that burned them (well...not really because they got bailed out). Therefore its going to take the local business community to put a lot of skin in the game, so to speak, to break the inertia of the banks.
Here is my idea. Get some high powered business leaders to start reinvesting in the city. Also, the city must get rid of its paralyzing legacy cost. It should start building from the core outward.....as that is how Detroit originally grew.
Hey...guess what....that is already happening.
But will it last? How far out from the core will the reinvestment radiate...and will it radiate fast enough to save anything? And are the budgetary corrections in place to prevent Detroit from getting in the same situation again?
I agree with getting high-powered business leaders to invest. But I doubt if Gilbert et al are going to put the same diligence into the residential areas as downtown. I think Gilbert is hoping to flip a lot of his acquisitions.
One advantage that my scheme can provide is that each area would compete for business investment. Also larger businesses that do invest would have a greater partnership with their respective area instead of being lost in the "bigger pond" of Detroit in its current condition.
There would also be opportunities for business to partner with the schools to provide apprenticeship programs. Each area could specialize in a certain business sector(s). Outside businesses in those sectors would be drawn to the area that "specializes" in their sector.
But will it last? How far out from the core will the reinvestment radiate...and will it radiate fast enough to save anything? And are the budgetary corrections in place to prevent Detroit from getting in the same situation again?
I agree with getting high-powered business leaders to invest. But I doubt if Gilbert et al are going to put the same diligence into the residential areas as downtown. I think Gilbert is hoping to flip a lot of his acquisitions.
One advantage that my scheme can provide is that each area would compete for business investment. Also larger businesses that do invest would have a greater partnership with their respective area instead of being lost in the "bigger pond" of Detroit in its current condition.
There would also be opportunities for business to partner with the schools to provide apprenticeship programs. Each area could specialize in a certain business sector(s). Outside businesses in those sectors would be drawn to the area that "specializes" in their sector.
I do not think Gilbert is really interested in the residential areas. I believe that the demand already exists as it is a national trend that the coveted young and talented demographic wants to live in urban rather than suburban environments. When Downtown, Midtown, Corktown, Woodbridge and other near neighborhoods fill up....then they gentrification will spread to adjacent areas. I think the business investors just serve as the catalyst.
I think your plan has a lot of merits....but what entity will give the OK to carve up the city in such a way? Do you think that city residents would vote for such a thing? Practicality has to be part of the discussion as well.
Yep....I do not think it requires anything special. I am optimistic that the turn around will accelerate once people start gaining confidence that things have indeed turned around....then a hell of a lot of people are going to want to take part in the turn around and there will be a lot of money to be made because things will be much cheaper for those who are ahead of the curve.
You're to be commended for wishful thinking, but Detroit had wishful thinking in the past that never materialized. People were claiming Detroit turned the corner when Kwame was mayor. The RenCen was supposed to usher in a renaissance of the city. I'd agree that downtown has the best potential for success than it has had in a long time, I just can't fathom it will extend out much.
Quote:
I think you got to get the Bankers on board and be willing to fund development and they want to see solid demand and return on investment. The banks are not willing to initiate the comeback because the banks are coming off a period of many bad loans and risky investments that burned them (well...not really because they got bailed out). Therefore its going to take the local business community to put a lot of skin in the game, so to speak, to break the inertia of the banks.
The investment downtown will probably increase, but do you think it will increase in the rest of the city? The banks investing downtown are not investing in the city as much as they are betting on the dreams of Gilbert and other business people. But the residential areas don't have the same representation among the business leaders to draw banks in.
And the big question remains: when Detroit runs low/negative on funds, how easily will it be for them to borrow considering they have been through bankruptcy so recently. Despite what anti-capitalists would like to believe, the banks lost a lot of money in Detroit Finley: Banks lost in Detroit's bankruptcy .
I do not think Gilbert is really interested in the residential areas. I believe that the demand already exists as it is a national trend that the coveted young and talented demographic wants to live in urban rather than suburban environments. When Downtown, Midtown, Corktown, Woodbridge and other near neighborhoods fill up....then they gentrification will spread to adjacent areas. I think the business investors just serve as the catalyst.
I think your plan has a lot of merits....but what entity will give the OK to carve up the city in such a way? Do you think that city residents would vote for such a thing?
Not right away, but my intent was to be creative and look for solutions that have not been tried. (By the way, I meant to title the thread "Outside-the-box-solutions". ) Who would have thought that the council members (7 of 9) would be elected by district instead of at-large? I think people are open to new ideas. I think the loyalty that people had to Detroit is a thing of the past. I bet if you asked most people in the residential areas of Detroit if they wanted to be annexed to the next closest suburb, they would jump at the opportunity.
Regarding the spread of gentrification, how long do you think it would take for the turn-around downtown to reach 8 Mile Road? Do you think the people living there are willing to wait that long, or will they already have moved to the suburbs?
Not right away, but my intent was to be creative and look for solutions that have not been tried. (By the way, I meant to title the thread "Outside-the-box-solutions". ) Who would have thought that the council members (7 of 9) would be elected by district instead of at-large? I think people are open to new ideas. I think the loyalty that people had to Detroit is a thing of the past. I bet if you asked most people in the residential areas of Detroit if they wanted to be annexed to the next closest suburb, they would jump at the opportunity.
Regarding the spread of gentrification, how long do you think it would take for the turn-around downtown to reach 8 Mile Road? Do you think the people living there are willing to wait that long, or will they already have moved to the suburbs?
All major cities or metro areas have concentrations of poverty and despair, regardless of how vibrant a city may be. I think it is totally unrealistic to have the expectation that all of Detroit will become gentrified and middle class. I guess the question is.....where will the metro area's poor live? I think for a LONG time, one of the main answers to that question will continue to be the city of Detroit.
All major cities or metro areas have concentrations of poverty and despair, regardless of how vibrant a city may be. I think it is totally unrealistic to have the expectation that all of Detroit will become gentrified and middle class. I guess the question is.....where will the metro area's poor live? I think for a LONG time, one of the main answers to that question will continue to be the city of Detroit.
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?
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.
) Who would have thought that the council members (7 of 9) would be elected by district instead of at-large? I think people are open to new ideas. I think the loyalty that people had to Detroit is a thing of the past. I bet if you asked most people in the residential areas of Detroit if they wanted to be annexed to the next closest suburb, they would jump at the opportunity.
