U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Michigan > Detroit
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-22-2016, 04:53 AM
 
Location: Here.
14,574 posts, read 13,314,053 times
Reputation: 17063

Advertisements

Eastpointe to change how it elects its city council

I guess black people couldn't possibly want the same things as whites (a clean safe city) and they must be confined to ghettos. You can expect this to happen to your city: the federal government overriding the city charter that was voted on by the people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-22-2016, 08:48 AM
 
Location: Metro Detroit
1,786 posts, read 1,937,484 times
Reputation: 3554
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but to me it sounds like the opposite.

Eastpointe has 14,000 white voters and 8,000 black voters. Whether we want to admit it or not, race impacts how we vote. We are more likely to vote for someone who reminds us of ourselves (Mayor Duggan of Detroit is a great counterpoint to this, so I understand there are holes in my statement here).

However, if all council seats were elected at large, it would increase the likelihood of all council members being from one neighborhood. By requiring a city to elect council members from districts it creates a situation where council meetings have representation from each neighborhood. While both council members should want the same thing, as you have stated, I know way more about issues in Downtown Royal Oak than I do about issues in Northern Royal Oak, and that has nothing to do with my income, education, color, whatever - and is simply based on where I spend time and who my neighbors are.

Of course I understand that the idea of "black neighborhoods" and "white neighborhoods" is stupid and shouldn't exist, but they do exist, and they likely will for generations, but by requiring that neighborhoods elect a representative to be their voice in city meetings it assures that their concerns are met equally from each neighborhood - regardless of color, rather than creating an unfair situation where only white members from north Eastpointe are at council meetings.

I'm open to having my view changed on this, but that's how I interpret it. I don't believe it has anything to do with assuming black people all live in ghettos and don't value a clean, safe city - all people value that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2016, 11:50 AM
 
Location: Here.
14,574 posts, read 13,314,053 times
Reputation: 17063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo-Aggie View Post
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but to me it sounds like the opposite.

Eastpointe has 14,000 white voters and 8,000 black voters. Whether we want to admit it or not, race impacts how we vote. We are more likely to vote for someone who reminds us of ourselves (Mayor Duggan of Detroit is a great counterpoint to this, so I understand there are holes in my statement here).

This is okay with you? I'm white, so I should vote for white people? This is exactly what the DOJ is perpetuating: that black people are racists and will only vote for black people.

However, if all council seats were elected at large, it would increase the likelihood of all council members being from one neighborhood. By requiring a city to elect council members from districts it creates a situation where council meetings have representation from each neighborhood. While both council members should want the same thing, as you have stated, I know way more about issues in Downtown Royal Oak than I do about issues in Northern Royal Oak, and that has nothing to do with my income, education, color, whatever - and is simply based on where I spend time and who my neighbors are.

I would agree to some extant for a large city like Detroit, but Eastpointe is 5 square miles. What could people living less than 2 miles from one another possibly want different from each other?

Of course I understand that the idea of "black neighborhoods" and "white neighborhoods" is stupid and shouldn't exist, but they do exist, and they likely will for generations

But doesn't creating artificial boundaries perpetuate this? And does the DOJ really think that Eastpointe is going to have a black south and white north for generations?

but by requiring that neighborhoods elect a representative to be their voice in city meetings it assures that their concerns are met equally from each neighborhood

I would agree with that for a large city or if the residents of the city felt that was necessary and decided themselves to change their city charter to voting by district rather than at large. But no one in Eastpointe has even suggested this. This is a "fake" injustice created by Obama's DOJ.

- regardless of color, rather than creating an unfair situation where only white members from north Eastpointe are at council meetings.

No one is preventing blacks from running for office. In fact, one ran in the last election and I expect more will run and eventually get elected. But it makes sense that people who have lived here longer would over time have become more involved in the community and have a vested interest in getting involved. Most blacks have been here only a few years. They are probably just recently starting to volunteer for local events and get to know people.

I'm open to having my view changed on this, but that's how I interpret it. I don't believe it has anything to do with assuming black people all live in ghettos and don't value a clean, safe city - all people value that.
Thank you for your response. It seems to me that the DOJ should be color blind and assume that black and white people, or rather people with various skin colors, have the same expectations from their municipality. It would make my day for the DOJ to go through all this harassment and for the white district elect a black councilperson and the black district elect a white councilperson.

Last edited by Retroit; 12-22-2016 at 12:04 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2016, 07:53 PM
 
Location: Detroit
3,671 posts, read 4,810,585 times
Reputation: 2624
Ig we'll have to see how this plays out. It kind of reminds me of a very tiny version of the congregational districts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2016, 03:33 PM
 
12,564 posts, read 7,624,034 times
Reputation: 4774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
Thank you for your response. It seems to me that the DOJ should be color blind and assume that black and white people, or rather people with various skin colors, have the same expectations from their municipality. It would make my day for the DOJ to go through all this harassment and for the white district elect a black councilperson and the black district elect a white councilperson.
I guess another way to look at it is to ask why would not whites want the same thing as blacks.....and hence there should be nothing to fear making the change, just in case there is a difference. We do not always have to default to...."why do we assume blacks don't want the same thing as whites....hence....its okay to have all white leadership even if the city is a third black".

Like I told you before Retroit.....Eastpointe will, in 15 years, be majority black (at least 60%). First the schools will turn majority black and then gradually the city. Why? It's because people will start moving because for the same reasons they moved out of Detroit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2016, 08:30 PM
 
Location: Metro Detroit
1,786 posts, read 1,937,484 times
Reputation: 3554
I don't know, I saw an MLive article recently that puts this theory of a Minority Cliff to rest - at least as far as modern migration patterns are. I have no doubt this was a thing 20 or 30 years ago. In fact, the article itself actually kind of makes the counterpoint that I'm making, saying segregation still exists and basically hits on the same issues we all hear, but if you go to the very bottom and look at their data and make your own interpretations, you'll find some interesting pieces of data which I believe tell a changing story.

Cities like Warren, Clinton, Farmington Hills - which saw a significant increase in black population from 2000 to 2010, saw those numbers remain about the same increasing only slightly from 2010 to 2014. This shows stability. If those towns were going to follow the path of Detroit those numbers would move up faster - they didn't. Other towns like Ferndale and Wixom which saw a modest influx of Black population from 2000 to 2010 have since seen that decrease.

Then look at towns with established black communities like Southfield, Pontiac, Oak Park - those towns are not becoming more segregated, in fact they are all becoming less segregated with the percentage of black population actually decreasing. Then look around at all the other suburbs, your traditionally white towns like the Grosss Pointes, St. Clair Shores, Rochester Hills - many of these towns have modestly growing African American populations.

There remain minor exceptions: Eastpointe, Roseville, Center Line and Fraser are still seeing fast-growing black populations, but these towns won't experience the white flight and self-imposed segregation we saw in other towns just a generation ago. This is due to a few things. Far more communities are welcoming to all races removing a situation where only select suburbs may be chosen for resettlement. Detroit, while still in rough shape, is not the deteriorating cesspool of pain which it was just 5 years ago, so many families which 5-10 years ago would've left, are choosing to stay and call it home. And finally, though the metro as a whole is becoming more diverse, it is not becoming more black.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2016, 10:28 AM
 
12,564 posts, read 7,624,034 times
Reputation: 4774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo-Aggie View Post
I don't know, I saw an MLive article recently that puts this theory of a Minority Cliff to rest - at least as far as modern migration patterns are. I have no doubt this was a thing 20 or 30 years ago. In fact, the article itself actually kind of makes the counterpoint that I'm making, saying segregation still exists and basically hits on the same issues we all hear, but if you go to the very bottom and look at their data and make your own interpretations, you'll find some interesting pieces of data which I believe tell a changing story.

Cities like Warren, Clinton, Farmington Hills - which saw a significant increase in black population from 2000 to 2010, saw those numbers remain about the same increasing only slightly from 2010 to 2014. This shows stability. If those towns were going to follow the path of Detroit those numbers would move up faster - they didn't. Other towns like Ferndale and Wixom which saw a modest influx of Black population from 2000 to 2010 have since seen that decrease.

Then look at towns with established black communities like Southfield, Pontiac, Oak Park - those towns are not becoming more segregated, in fact they are all becoming less segregated with the percentage of black population actually decreasing. Then look around at all the other suburbs, your traditionally white towns like the Grosss Pointes, St. Clair Shores, Rochester Hills - many of these towns have modestly growing African American populations.

There remain minor exceptions: Eastpointe, Roseville, Center Line and Fraser are still seeing fast-growing black populations, but these towns won't experience the white flight and self-imposed segregation we saw in other towns just a generation ago. This is due to a few things. Far more communities are welcoming to all races removing a situation where only select suburbs may be chosen for resettlement. Detroit, while still in rough shape, is not the deteriorating cesspool of pain which it was just 5 years ago, so many families which 5-10 years ago would've left, are choosing to stay and call it home. And finally, though the metro as a whole is becoming more diverse, it is not becoming more black.
2000-2010 was an anomaly created by the housing bubble and easy mortgages....that made it easier for people to move. Thus, a lot of inner-ring suburbs that were nearly all white had residents who could, because of easy mortgage lending, get bigger homes further out. They, however, needed to sell their current home in the inner-ring suburb....and the only people that was attractive to were.....Detroit residents who were mostly black and who were able to get easy mortgages to purchase the home. This actually happened all over the country and lead to a historical change in the percentage of blacks living in the suburbs. That era is gone and hence its harder to get mortgages and hence blacks are not flooding into the suburbs like they were back then. However, in smaller suburbs like EastPointe and Harperwood....where the percentage of backs have reached the traditional tipping point the triggers white flight....these cities are going to turn majority black in a decade or so. Warren is a bit larger and hence the percentage of blacks have not reached the triggering point of white flight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2016, 01:01 PM
 
Location: Here.
14,574 posts, read 13,314,053 times
Reputation: 17063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indentured Servant View Post
I guess another way to look at it is to ask why would not whites want the same thing as blacks.....and hence there should be nothing to fear making the change, just in case there is a difference. We do not always have to default to...."why do we assume blacks don't want the same thing as whites....hence....its okay to have all white leadership even if the city is a third black".
The default should be: we are all equal and want the same city services. Once we start pretending that certain groups of people want lesser things, then we will have to gerrymander every time certain groups of people move into an area.

Quote:
Like I told you before Retroit.....Eastpointe will, in 15 years, be majority black (at least 60%). First the schools will turn majority black and then gradually the city. Why? It's because people will start moving because for the same reasons they moved out of Detroit.
Exactly, so Obama's DOJ is forcing cities to waste all this time, effort, and money for a fleeting demographical change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2016, 12:22 PM
 
1,648 posts, read 2,747,783 times
Reputation: 1438
This might have something to do (if memory serves me correctly) as part of a Supreme Court case associated with the Voting Rights Act of 1964/5. Basically - the Courts ruled that if there were majority black areas in a tract census, those couldn't be gerrymandered to dilute the effect of the black vote. I'm not sure how relevant this is in 2016 - but I think that was the original basis. If you had a city of Inkster, for example, you couldn't fully lump it into a neighboring city of 3 times the population and 95% white to dilute the black vote. So, in effect, the restricting just lumps all the black votes together into a solidly Dem district - that's why you'll see the one in Michigan go from Melvindale, through Detroit, up into Pontiac.

So if an area is "written off" to be Democratic area - you'll see it tries to cover as many white Democratic suburbs as well - so those votes can't have as large of an impact in a Republican leaning area. See these two maps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michig...ince_2013).tif

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michig...ince_2013).tif
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2016, 10:38 PM
 
Location: Detroit
3,671 posts, read 4,810,585 times
Reputation: 2624
Quote:
Originally Posted by belleislerunner View Post
This might have something to do (if memory serves me correctly) as part of a Supreme Court case associated with the Voting Rights Act of 1964/5. Basically - the Courts ruled that if there were majority black areas in a tract census, those couldn't be gerrymandered to dilute the effect of the black vote. I'm not sure how relevant this is in 2016 - but I think that was the original basis. If you had a city of Inkster, for example, you couldn't fully lump it into a neighboring city of 3 times the population and 95% white to dilute the black vote. So, in effect, the restricting just lumps all the black votes together into a solidly Dem district - that's why you'll see the one in Michigan go from Melvindale, through Detroit, up into Pontiac.

So if an area is "written off" to be Democratic area - you'll see it tries to cover as many white Democratic suburbs as well - so those votes can't have as large of an impact in a Republican leaning area. See these two maps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michig...ince_2013).tif

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michig...ince_2013).tif
That is flat out insane.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Michigan > Detroit
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:48 AM.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top