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 agree with you 100%. Karma is a mutha... It's easy to have a superiority mindset driven opinion.....until you finally have to walk in the shoes of the entity you condemned. It's time for him to shut up and suck up and live with the principles he exposed when businesses were leaving Detroit for Oakland C.
I do not see it as a game of musical chairs at all. The who region, as well as the state, benefits when its largest city looks vibrant. It does not matter how nice the suburbs of Detroit are in reality, those suburbs are not the face of Detroit. The face of Detroit is really not even the neighborhoods, but rather, the downtown area. The rebirth of Detroit, as much as we would like it to be the neighborhoods, initially, is downtown. Business travelers are not going to Mrs. Jones house for dinner and a show in Brightmoor. Thus, if her neighborhood is fixed up its not going to inspire investment like a booming vibrant downtown would.
I think the REGION and state is better served by investing in the city of Detroit at the expense of the suburbs...versus the other way around. Look what that got us.
So...screw the people who live here...it's all about impressing the business traveler.
Wait till detwahDJ sees this. Cater to capitalism...let the peons suffer.
That isn't true. I can't think of a single circumstance where taxpayer dollars were used to lure a Detroit company to Oakland County. But the reverse happens all the time.
Regardless, Oakland County uses tax breaks to lure and keep companies from wherever else they would otherwise be located. Detroit is playing the same game and really it's just how today's economy works.
According to a briefing memo from the Michigan Economic Development Corp., Molina was also considering locations in Kentucky, Texas, Florida and Arizona.
The need for the funding, according to the memo, is due to the wage gap between Michigan and other states up for consideration, and Molina said it expects to incur other increased costs by locating in Detroit, due to higher income taxes, reimbursement of parking and the need for more job training.
HTC also had a competing offer for tax incentives and rent exemptions in Indiana to expand operations at or near a development center it maintains in Bloomington, according to the Michigan Economic Development Corp.
• H.A. Automotive Systems Inc., which makes automotive lighting components for North American OEMs, plans to purchase a building in Troy at 1300 Coolidge Road. There, it will establish a headquarters, manufacturing, and research and development facility related to electric lamp bulb and component manufacturing, according to a briefing memo. The company is expected to invest $28.8 million and create 368 new jobs. It was awarded $2.25 million in state assistance.
So...screw the people who live here...it's all about impressing the business traveler.
Wait till detwahDJ sees this. Cater to capitalism...let the peons suffer.
The business traveler is a major part of the corporate world, and should be impressed.
And screw the disgruntled suburbanites who are gratified and self-validated by Detroit's demise? Yes indeed!
I agree with you 100%. Karma is a mutha... It's easy to have a superiority mindset driven opinion.....until you finally have to walk in the shoes of the entity you condemned. It's time for him to shut up and suck up and live with the principles he exposed when businesses were leaving Detroit for Oakland C.
I do not see it as a game of musical chairs at all. The who region, as well as the state, benefits when its largest city looks vibrant. It does not matter how nice the suburbs of Detroit are in reality, those suburbs are not the face of Detroit. The face of Detroit is really not even the neighborhoods, but rather, the downtown area. The rebirth of Detroit, as much as we would like it to be the neighborhoods, initially, is downtown. Business travelers are not going to Mrs. Jones house for dinner and a show in Brightmoor. Thus, if her neighborhood is fixed up its not going to inspire investment like a booming vibrant downtown would.
I think the REGION and state is better served by investing in the city of Detroit at the expense of the suburbs...versus the other way around. Look what that got us.
Like "313 Weather" said, the hypocrisy is too real with this one. I agree, DETROIT CITY is the face of Detroit and hell, even MI to alot of people outside of the Mid west in my experience. Ever wonder why people in other regions are damn near shocked when someone tells them a bunch of things about Metro Detroit, or when they find out Metro Detroit ranks pretty high on multiple list? It's because no one gives a rats ass about suburban Detroit. But they (think) they know ALLLL about that 15% we call "The City of Detroit". This is why it's so important that Detroit city looks more attractive to people outside of the region, this is why the city needs support from it's own region and state. Metro Detroit, and MI's image won't change for the better or be as attractive until Detroit has at least a stronger urban core.
Maybe only Los Angeles can get away with having very popular suburbs and even they know that they need to invest in their urban core.
So...screw the people who live here...it's all about impressing the business traveler.
Wait till detwahDJ sees this. Cater to capitalism...let the peons suffer.
You are being disingenuous and or naive. Just think of how many more conventions Detroit could attract with a more vibrant downtown? You are talking millions of dollars pumped into the city as the result. Guess what.....money to the city helps improve city services and adds dollars for schools and policing. A vibrant downtown may attract new investors and each new investing entity adds to the tax base of the city. Anything that adds revenue to the city should positively impact the neighborhoods. If there was a massive redevelopment of Brightmoor....other than the construction jobs.....it would not spur business investment into the city like efforts would by revitalizing downtown.
I say drain the hell out of the burbs and redistribute it to the city and the region and state will be much better in the long run for it. Look what the draining of the city did for the reputation of the whole region and state. Even if the suburbs withered as the city of Detroit boomed from the transfer, the image of the area would make a giant improvement because no one defines this area by the suburbs, but rather, the city. The only people who define this area by the suburbs......are the people in the suburbs here.
You are being disingenuous and or naive. Just think of how many more conventions Detroit could attract with a more vibrant downtown? You are talking millions of dollars pumped into the city as the result. Guess what.....money to the city helps improve city services and adds dollars for schools and policing. A vibrant downtown may attract new investors and each new investing entity adds to the tax base of the city. Anything that adds revenue to the city should positively impact the neighborhoods. If there was a massive redevelopment of Brightmoor....other than the construction jobs.....it would not spur business investment into the city like efforts would by revitalizing downtown.
I say drain the hell out of the burbs and redistribute it to the city and the region and state will be much better in the long run for it. Look what the draining of the city did for the reputation of the whole region and state. Even if the suburbs withered as the city of Detroit boomed from the transfer, the image of the area would make a giant improvement because no one defines this area by the suburbs, but rather, the city. The only people who define this area by the suburbs......are the people in the suburbs here.
It's a bit of a straw man, though. Nobody's saying that a vibrant downtown Detroit isn't beneficial. I think most everybody believes the opposite, the question is whether the ends in this case justify the means. Collapsing the suburbs by playing this deck chair game doesn't help that vibrancy as much as attracting businesses from outside the area, or helping existing businesses already in the downtown core expand and grow. It weakens a supposedly strong section of the regional economy to boost another supposedly strong section.
You speak of how the city is defined, but seem unaware that this sort of move can also define the city to the outside as one with a collapsing roof, the formation of a black hole, a circling of the wagons. You yourself brought up the drain metaphor. Creating the appearance of vibrancy at any cost doesn't actually seem like real vibrancy. I hope the city needs less of these moves going forward.
It's a bit of a straw man, though. Nobody's saying that a vibrant downtown Detroit isn't beneficial. I think most everybody believes the opposite, the question is whether the ends in this case justify the means. Collapsing the suburbs by playing this deck chair game doesn't help that vibrancy as much as attracting businesses from outside the area, or helping existing businesses already in the downtown core expand and grow. It weakens a supposedly strong section of the regional economy to boost another supposedly strong section.
You speak of how the city is defined, but seem unaware that this sort of move can also define the city to the outside as one with a collapsing roof, the formation of a black hole, a circling of the wagons. You yourself brought up the drain metaphor. Creating the appearance of vibrancy at any cost doesn't actually seem like real vibrancy. I hope the city needs less of these moves going forward.
You make it sound as though people from outside of the region are concerned about the state of Detroit's suburbs. Truthfully, because of Detroit's city core image, many people probably could care less. People favor centralized cities over decentralized ones.
You make it sound as though people from outside of the region are concerned about the state of Detroit's suburbs. Truthfully, because of Detroit's city core image, many people probably could care less. People favor centralized cities over decentralized ones.
People from outside the region see Detroit's suburbs as an extension of the city. Truthfully, many see Flint as an extension of Detroit. If parts of the metro region fall, it reflects on the region. Second, the centralized vs decentralized argument doesn't seem to hold true. San Jose/Silicon Valley has to be one of the most decentralized cities in the country, yet it's doing just fine. People prefer healthy cities/economies over unhealthy ones. The organization of those economies isn't as important, but again, this is that same straw man. I'm arguing for a healthy central Detroit, but don't see a lateral move like this helping it as much as helping companies and startups that are already in the core would.
Last edited by RustBeltOptimist; 11-13-2014 at 04:29 PM..
It's a bit of a straw man, though. Nobody's saying that a vibrant downtown Detroit isn't beneficial. I think most everybody believes the opposite, the question is whether the ends in this case justify the means. Collapsing the suburbs by playing this deck chair game doesn't help that vibrancy as much as attracting businesses from outside the area, or helping existing businesses already in the downtown core expand and grow. It weakens a supposedly strong section of the regional economy to boost another supposedly strong section.
You speak of how the city is defined, but seem unaware that this sort of move can also define the city to the outside as one with a collapsing roof, the formation of a black hole, a circling of the wagons. You yourself brought up the drain metaphor. Creating the appearance of vibrancy at any cost doesn't actually seem like real vibrancy. I hope the city needs less of these moves going forward.
Thanks for at least being a sincere poster on this subject. First, - "vibrancy" as an attraction is too vague imo - it's about a place where people will invest and open up shop, and after this starts to happen, "vibrancy" is the result (not the cause). Granted, they might feed off each other at a certain point.
Second, nobody is "collapsing" the suburbs - all they need do is attract the businesses they need from wherever they can get it via their superior facilities and policies. Even attracting business from "outside the area" is someone else's loss. Now, startups are another matter - that's where it's at imo.
Yeah, and using government perks to do all this stuff is time-honored in the business world regardless of the phony posturing about their "love of competition" - they hate it and often use government to stifle it.
Amazing that after decades of gleeful abandonment of Detroit along with the scolding, sniffing, and finger pointing - now the grousing and wailing over these new developments of recent days.
People from outside the region see Detroit's suburbs as an extension of the city. Truthfully, many see Flint as an extension of Detroit. If parts of the metro region fall, it reflects on the region. Second, the centralized vs decentralized argument doesn't seem to hold true. San Jose/Silicon Valley has to be one of the most decentralized cities in the country, yet it's doing just fine. People prefer healthy cities/economies over unhealthy ones. The organization of those economies isn't as important, but again, this is that same straw man. I'm arguing for a healthy central Detroit, but don't see a lateral move like this helping it as much as helping companies and startups that are already in the core would.
Not really. Pontiac would be a great example of a suburb that is even adjacent to more affluent suburbs, yet its decline has largely remained unmentioned whenever referring to Oakland County. Even a few suburbs within Wayne County have seen similar post-industrial declines but are completely under people's radars.
If people see that inner-city Detroit is improving then that improves the overall image of the metro because most people assume Detroit's suburbs to be like any other suburbs; strip malls, tract housing, and soccer moms. Plus not everyone wants to live in a suburb. Especially the employees these companies are trying to attract.
Also, Detroit is statistically more decentralized than Silicon Valley. 77% of Detroit's job centers are 10+ miles outside of the downtown core. San Jose's is 4.2%. That doesn't seem at all healthy.
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.
