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.
Than Detroit is truly finish. Rounds of layoffs, one after another for teachers and police. At one point, the city ran out of money to pay it's EMS. The parents are a lost cause, so the students won't fare much better. Detroit is basically becoming a 3rd world city. Maybe liberals will take notice and learn something, but they probably won't. The view from inside their rear tends to distort reality.
This is kind of a dumb statement, the decline of Detroit is less about politics and more about poor management and short sightedness to attract and diversify the economy. If anything, Detroit is an example of always planning for distant future growth and future challenges. Had Detroit built a strong rail system 100 years ago, had Detroit not jumped on board with the urban renewal project, had Detroit made GM build all that office space throughout downtown rather than in one complex on the water, had the city not built all those highways, the city of Detroit would look much different today and could possibly be in much better shape like Chicago is.
As for trying to blame this on liberals and think they need to learn something from it, well conservatives could learn a lot from Detroit as well....as a matter of fact, all people, regardless of political leaning could learn something. On the flip side, I guess one could say conservatives could learn a lot from Portland, Oregon which is a very liberal city and had the vision in the 70s to tear down a highway, prevent future highways from cutting through the city, and built and expanded a rail system in an era when rail was suppose to be dying.
Each city is different and often times it is idiotic to try to blame or triumph the successes of a city off political leanings. Has the city of Portland been a pretty liberal city? Yep, for a long time now, but it wasn't being liberal that got it to where it is today, it was having strong individual leaders that thought clearly of the city's future and communities that worked with the city for a common goal to improve the city overall, none of which has anything to do with politics and everything about the people of a city investing in their own city.
I think eventually Detroit will file for and be given bankruptcy to start over. Though it is a sad story, I don't see the city dying completely, maybe its former self will die, but I feel it will rise back up and learn from the past - not have such corrupt leaders (and let's be honest here, all politicians are liars and somewhat corrupt), diversity the local economy - and this should be repeated 4 more times. That is the main reason for the demise of the city IMO. There are smaller reasons but if the economy was more diverse and not dependent on the auto industry this situation would not be occurring like it is.
I do see more innovation coming from Detroit automakers. It seems all of them are hiring and business is better since the bailouts. But the city has to do something to lure more types of businesses. I have read that they are trying to beef up the IT industry in Detroit and that there is a growing urban farming movement there. They need to build on these new innovations, fix the school system there and keep growing forward.
I do think they will get a bailout. It is horrible, but I don't see any other option for the city other than bankruptcy/bailout. I lived in Detroit for a couple years and I honestly wouldn't mind moving back to the area, not even right now - I admit though I wouldn't live in the city mostly due to the school system there. I have relatives there though who have kids and their kids go to decent schools but IMO the decent schools are too far and in between.
This is kind of a dumb statement, the decline of Detroit is less about politics and more about poor management and short sightedness to attract and diversify the economy. If anything, Detroit is an example of always planning for distant future growth and future challenges. Had Detroit built a strong rail system 100 years ago, had Detroit not jumped on board with the urban renewal project, had Detroit made GM build all that office space throughout downtown rather than in one complex on the water, had the city not built all those highways, the city of Detroit would look much different today and could possibly be in much better shape like Chicago is.
As for trying to blame this on liberals and think they need to learn something from it, well conservatives could learn a lot from Detroit as well....as a matter of fact, all people, regardless of political leaning could learn something. On the flip side, I guess one could say conservatives could learn a lot from Portland, Oregon which is a very liberal city and had the vision in the 70s to tear down a highway, prevent future highways from cutting through the city, and built and expanded a rail system in an era when rail was suppose to be dying.
Each city is different and often times it is idiotic to try to blame or triumph the successes of a city off political leanings. Has the city of Portland been a pretty liberal city? Yep, for a long time now, but it wasn't being liberal that got it to where it is today, it was having strong individual leaders that thought clearly of the city's future and communities that worked with the city for a common goal to improve the city overall, none of which has anything to do with politics and everything about the people of a city investing in their own city.
Yeh. Like how to be a repellant for relocating businesses and making the poor pay a regressive arts tax.
I love Portland, but it's hardly an example of good governance for other cities.
Actually if you look at the path of the city over the past 50 years, it is. If certain moves were not made in the 70s, there would be a good chance Portland would of been nothing more than a dying lumber town today.
The south gave incentives for people to move there. They attracted the new auto manufacturers which created jobs and many people followed. The union strongholds and nobody willing to go against them is why Detroit was unable to attract these jobs.
True, Governor Granholm admitted on her last tour with VW execs, she knew Michigan was going to be axed from the short list as they spent the full tour lamenting dealing with the UAW.
It is no coincidence a state with tremendous experience with the auto industry landed ZERO transplant facilities.
It also doesn't help that Detroit put all its focus on the auto industry and then didn't try and stay competitive with foreign companies when they began making better vehicles.
Union and competitive are 180º from one another. No way you are going to compete with Japan or Korea, if you run union labor. Never going to happen. A no bid contract from your buddy in high office is how unions stay busy.
, and that is why, once there were serious competitors apart from the oligopoly (D3), the D3 imploded. It was the first time they truly had to compete in a FREE market.
Had that happened 20 years earlier, perhaps Motown would have wised up and planned for a city that could survive without a massive D3. Lack of competition made both the D3 and Detroit soft.
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.
