Detroit Neighborhoods, Development and more

[Jin Kim]

How about density of tax base, instead, then?

Detroit's revenue in FY2004 was about $1.87 billion and spent about $2.1 billion.

Atlanta's budget in 2004 was about $5 billion and increased to about $6.8 in 2005.

I think that's with Detroit having higher tax rates, even.

I'm not saying Detroit couldn't do a better job at spending. It's not uncommon for me to wonder if little tax I pay from working in Detroit is being used efficiently.

But when we're talking about density in this context, it's more to do with revenue potential than anything else.

Though I have no figures to backup this claim, I bet most of the people who make money in Atlanta also lives in Atlanta and it's the exact opposite in Detroit.

People who leave Detroit are more often than not those who make enough money to leave the city whereas the those who stay are those who cannot afford to do so.

Interestingly many of the new residents in Atlanta are would be tax paying residents from Detroit.

I will give you one point, though... cutting staff. Apparently Detroit's allotted over 15,000 positions whereas Atlanta has only alloted about 8,600.

[RustTown]

My argument wasn't so much population density, but how large and extensive the cities infastructure is, and how much it costs to maintain it will less than half the people, but in the exact same area. Atlanta may be nearly the same size of Detroit in area, but most of its infastructure is nowhere near as large, complicated and old as Detroit's. Stack on top of that the wealth of the citizens in each city, as Jin showed, and you get a better picture.

[hudkina]

But the point is that as population declines so does the demand for services. I'm sure the city could survive with even more schools closed, even more workers axed, and even more services cut.

[RustTown]

Not necessarily. It depends on which service you are talking about. Fire and Police are probably used now more then almost ever before. Just because people move from the city doesn't necessarily mean that less houses are catching on fire, or that crime goes down, as well. Of course, trash pick-up wouldn't be one of those.

[Jin Kim]

You also have to figure in that people don't leave in neat blocks. It's not as if Detroit's loosing people from one police precinct then the next, etc. It's not as if Detroit's loosing folks in with kids one school at a time.

If the city's slowly loosing population from 20 schools at the same time, the city still has to run the 20 schools until at some extreme where you have to tell some group of population that they now have to attend school that are much further than they had to in the past.

You don't close a school or even reduce services at that school b/c you lost 5 kids one year.

[haydenth]

I need to rant, I can't hold this in anymore

The glory days? I get irritated when people want Detroit to go back to where it was in the 20s or the 50s. I for one, would absolutely NOT want to see the city I love go back to a time when:

1. Blacks (and other minorities) were confined to specific portions of the city ( black bottom, paradise valley) and were prevented from leaving because of segregationist policies both official and not.

2. There were jobs available that paid well, but not for minorities. They had to work in the most dangerous places ( like in the more dangerous jobs at Rouge, like pouring steel )

3. There was great culture, jazz, movies, but minorities generally weren't allowed to partake

4. There was beautiful architecture, but generally minorities couldn't live in it.

5. Goons like Harry Bennett were roughing up autoworkers and union formers.

I want to live in a Detroit where it may be gritty and times may be tough and crime is a problem, but at least we're all moving towards a diverse culture and workplace, unlike the suburbs or other cities around the US. At least I can go to a bar and have a good time with all types of people. The city has it's share of problems, but things are getting better. The children of white families who fled the city in the 50s-80s are starting to fill out lofts in some of the hip areas. Change takes a long time, and I'm convinced that in Detroit, like in the 1830s, it's going to start from downtown and move outwards slowly. Largely, the auto companies are going to go belly up and the Detroit economy is going to do something that really has never happened here in 300 years, DIVERSIFY.

I'm a white guy, born and raised in Troy, and told that Coleman Young was the reason for the death of Detroit. I've done my research, read his book, and realized, Young isn't the reason the city is in poor shape. We all are. The suburbanites for running quickly. The Detroiters for saying "good riddance". Political regionalism isn't going to sovle the problems. L Brooks Patterson and Kwame Kilpatrick can become best friends but that's not going to solve the deep seeded racism and fear in the suburbs or the "us vs them" mentality of the city. Afterall, Young and Milliken were best buds and that solved none of the problems.

Economic regionalism will save Detroit. As the auto companies continue to tank, small business in the city and in the suburbs are going to grow slowly over time as new industries develop that rely on mass transportation, and workers of varying degrees of education and income. A younger generation who isn't scared of minorities or petty crime is moving back into the urban environmnet. Detroit is world class metropolis, if you're not sure read Crains or any of the other business publications in town and I'd rather live nowhere else at no other period of time.

I love the Detroit of today, moving towards a racially, architectually, financially, artisticly and economically diverse city like never before.

[RustTown]

I agree with most of that, but there were many more reasons why I would not want to see the Detroit of old, today. Apart from minority relations anyone looking back in hindsight can see how incredibly unstable the city was economically. Everyone was content with the fact that their city relied almost exculsively on one industry, as long as they were living relatively well. It was that nonchalant attitude that really hit the city hard. The city was on the decline quite a few years before race relations got really bad.

IMO, it was always the economic decline that later sparked the underlying poor race relations. Not the other way around. It was only when things really started to get ugly economically that majority middle-class FINALLY realized that they better bail-out or face living in what would become a failed city, and then they'd have no one else to blame. I know that's going to be a controversial statement, but that is definitely part of the story.

[haydenth]

Yeah, that was one of the points I was trying to make, sort of. In a way, I'm kind of happy to see the auto companies go through so much turmoil, because it's forcing the whole region to diversify. I look at Detroit (and Michigan) and see a growing Healthcare and Rx sector that Detroit can capitalize on - the DMC has the facilities and talent to do so, but faces budget woes. I see Detroit as a future hub of specialized manufacturing and computerized manufacturing processes. I see Detroit as a minor banking hub (second in the midwest to Chicago). I see the metro area having solid high class educational facilities (U of M, Oakland, WSU). I see a metropolis with a really well constructed infrastructure that can handle much higher capacities (see I-96 from downtown to 275). I see a rapidly growing entertainment district downtown from the ballparks to campus martius to greektown to corktown, which is safe, comfy, and a great time. I see really low cost office space downtown. The economics today are in Detroit's favor - FINALLY - even though things look bleak when you look at Delphi or GM or Ford. In the long run (10-50 years, Detroit wins).

I disagree that blacks were content in the 20s-50s because of economic prosperity. Look at the Ossian Sweet Incident or '43 riots or the precursors to the '67 riots or the "pointe system". Segregation was a policy. Integration was not, at least until the Young era, but by then it was too late. I think you and Young would agree that jobs is what glues the city together both racially and fiscally. Do I think the '67 riots would have happened had none of the jobs/people left the city? I'm not sure. However, I do think SOMETHING was bound to happen because of the political instability. It's kind of the chicken and the egg scenario - do businesses/people leave when minorities move to the neighborhood or do minorities move the the neighborhood after the business and people have already started to leave. Maybe it's both.

I'm not even talking about Affirmitive Action either ( I don't want to get into that here ) - I'm just talking about blatant discrimination. I'm not black, so I guess I'm looking in from the outside, as well...

[RustTown]

I didn't say Blacks were content, and BTW, I'm a Black American if you didn't know. What I'm saying is that race relations didn't get very bad until after the lower-middle class and poor of all races were left to fight over the last vestigaes of economic empowerment in a dieing city. The thing was, that the Black population in Detroit was pretty small all the way up until the 50's so they were largely ignored by the city being such a small group of people, and a minority group, at that.

As for your question near the end, it was a bit of both. Though, I strongly believe that there was a hysteria created by the upper-class that left the city that "those people" were taking over the city, and opened the floodgates for the upper-middle class to flee with them. I really never got that hysteria, maybe because it was just that: hysteria. The truth was, the upper-class saw a city about to crash (or had already began to crash) economically and had the means to escape before the figuarative bomb went off. To me, the whole lie and myth of a Black takeover was not needed, and to this day is why race relations are so bad. They should have just left and either have said it was because of the impending doom of a dieing economy, or left no reason at all. Instead, a lie was perpetuated, and fulfilled by those that believe it, both Black, Whiter, and otherwise.

What makes me so sad are those in the middle class that tried to stay in the city and stick it out (those of all races). Those that didn't by into the hype. In the end, I think it was the post-world war II attitude of running when going gets tough that killed the city. It was the region buying into its own hype that created a self-fulfilling prophecy. It was the micro-provincialism, as well. These fools (the leaders) were so busying eating up the spin and the hype that they didn't even care about the rest of the world moving on. And this happened in a lot of cities, but few places as bad, and few cities as big, as Detroit.

[cmj2k5]

A younger generation who isn't scared of minorities or petty crime is moving back into the urban environmnet.

This younger generation could also just be more interested in urban living in general, because all we see today are the roofs of houses that all look the same for miles, in which every community has the same stores, same setup, same everything. People want change.

[Allan]

Hopefully this will help the residents of some Detroit neighborhoods...

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=7642

[RustTown]

I'm confused, wasn't this already something cities could do using Brownfields and Empowerment zones? I'm pretty sure some loft projects around me have their taxes frozen for something like 12 years before of getting brownfield designation, Obsolete Property Rehabiliations, and the like. Can someone explain to me how this is different?

[Allan]

This is for established neighborhoods...places like Boston-Edison, University District, Indian Village, Grandmont-Rosedale, etc. Brownfields & Empowerment zones are for badly decayed neighborhoods and urban prairies.

[RustTown]

Thanks! I was wondering what I was missing. This should help retain residents that may have been considering moving because of the high property taxes, or those looking to locate to the city but wary of the high property taxes.

I wonder if enough people will be attracted to these areas to offset the loss in property taxes to the city, though? If not, where are they going to make up the loss?

[Allan]

I'm not sure how they will make up for the loss. This is aimed more at retaining residents than adding new ones. I suppose it all depends exactly what parts of the 67 mills drop off.

Currently the breakdown for the homestead rate is like this:

State education tax 6 mills

General city tax 19.962 mills

Garbage disposal 2.9943 mills

Debt service 7.4796 mills

Library tax 3.63310 mill

School bond debt 13 mills

Wayne County tax 7.822 mills

Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority .2154 mills

Wayne County Community College 2.4844 mills

Intermediate School District 3.4643 mills

Total : 67.0551 mills

The non-homestead rate is 18 mills higher, at 85 mills.

[Ramcharger]

Detroit is knee-deep in garbage problems

It has been only three months since Kwame instituted his no bulk trash collection policy and the trash is accumulating even faster than I anticipated. As I stated earlier in this thread, this is the worst decision Kwame has ever made. There are piles of trash on almost every street in every neighborhood in the city. I live near Rouge Park and it is becoming one huge garbage dump! It is only a matter of time before all this accumulated trash becomes a public health hazard. Here are a few pictures I took while walking around my neighborhood this morning.

(The car is also abandon.)

Most of this trash has been there for at least a month and repeated calls to the city produce no results. While trash piles up all over town the City Council is giving itself a 23% budget increase and Kwame Kilpatrick is among the highest paid mayors in the country. After 54 years of living in Detroit even I

[Allan]

I too have noticed the increase in trash in Detroit's neighborhoods. In any other city, you might be able to get away with eliminating a program like bulk trash pickup, but Detroit has a huge problem with illegal dumping. The elimination of bulk pickup has certainly not helped this problem at all.

[Michi]

I wonder why people can make it to their curbs, but can't take a pickup (or borrow their neighbor's) to take it to the 3 or so designated bulk-trash dump sites in the city? What good is it going to do being on the curb when there is no service established to pick it up? I mean, why not just throw it in your yard, in your neighbor's yard, in the trees, or in the streets? It's not like anybody is going to do anything about it...because they can't.

Does the city have a fine set up against illegal dumping of bulk trash like this?

By the way...if any of you forumers who live in the neighborhoods spot an abandoned 1998 light blue Ford Taurus w/ MSU, WSU, and Pure Detroit stickers on the back windshield, could ya let me know? I'd like my car back!

[Allan]

Keep in mind that A LOT of people come in from the burbs to dump their garbage in the city for free, as opposed to taking it to a junkyard. I can't tell you how many times I've driven around neighborhoods and seen people unloading pickups full of garbage on empty lots.

Sorry to hear about your car...I'll keep my eye out for it. It seems that a lot of my friends have had a rough year so far when it comes to cars in Detroit.

[Ramcharger]

Most of these piles of trash are from evictions or foreclosures. The property owners, most often banks or mortgage companies, hire people to clear out the house and the curb is where they dump all the crap. These piles shrink and grow over time as scrap collectors pick through the stuff taking anything they believe could be of value and residents looking to get rid of their own trash dump it on an existing pile.

[tomo]

Ramcharger, sounds like the property owner should be responsible for disposing of the crap inside instead of what they do. In cases where it's residents just dumping crap at the curb expecting bulk pickup to continue (if they just let it sit long enough) perhaps better education would have helped but the free service and expectation of it had to end at some point.

[RustTown]

It wasn't free. People were paying taxes. But, that is just a minor point. I do agree with a comment made earlier that Detroit is one city that can't afford to cut bulk trash pick-up.

[Ramcharger]

It wasn't free. People were paying taxes.

We are still paying the highest taxes in the state (property & income taxes). My taxes have not decreased with the elimination of services, they have increased, and all we seem to get for our tax dollars is increased political bureaucracy! This type of mismanagement just drives residents out of the city further eroding the tax base. By the way, what

[RustTown]

Very good point, Ram.

[detroitfan]

The casino taxes go to the general fund if weren't the $168M we collected we'd be in a real hole. I don't think this money includes any of the special funds setup like minority business development. An additional 1-2 tax to fund the Recreation Dept is supposed to start this year

http://www.detroitmi.gov/budget/2005-06_Re...%20Schedule.pdf