Discuss Detroit » Archives - July 2007 » Three Reasons people are moving out. » Archive through October 08, 2007 « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 1792
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 12:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

>Michigan

Are you on x or something? Calm your hyper ass down.
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 1793
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 12:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Maybe because they run Detroit and they are in the majority? Just a guess. I wouldn't expect the black community to save Holland Michigan but that is just me.

So who saved DC, and Philadelphia, and Atlanta?
Top of pageBottom of page

6nois
Member
Username: 6nois

Post Number: 529
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 12:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

http://www.michigannow.org/arc hives.php

Listen to the two interviews with the NY Deputy Mayor. Very interesting and hits on most of the points here and talks about how New York did it, and how things could be done here.

As for property there are alot of white suburbanites holding properties with the highest potential for growth at prices that are not viable. I was talking to one of my Architecture professors about commercial properties on Livernois near the University, and he was doing research for a project and the cheapest properties are starting at $300,000 and that needs alot of work probably another 100-300 thousand. So over inflated prices with people waiting to make tons of money is a problem for redevelopment, specifically in areas where development is viable.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dougw
Member
Username: Dougw

Post Number: 1940
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 12:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

"I agree with all of these, but I'd say schools and crime are among them, both certainly a bigger problem than transportation."

Believe it or not, transportation is the biggest problem in Detroit.


You are correct, transportation is the biggest problem. However, I would still put crime as a close second, a very significant problem.

Schools are pretty much irrelevant to Detroit's recovery, though, for several reasons.
Top of pageBottom of page

Michigan
Member
Username: Michigan

Post Number: 1280
Registered: 04-2007
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 12:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Who saved Philly? Obviously no one since the police are begging residents to get off there butts and do something to try to stop the city's descent into utter criminal chaos. 10,000 vigilantes, that ought to do it! I would love to see the national response if the police asked white men to go out and act as vigilantes for them.


Atlanta? Ted Turner

DC? Marion Barry, oh wait sorry. Maybe the entire frigging federal government is what saved it? Especially since the purse strings are controlled by the feds. Even with all that, drive around DC, it is still a burned out husk of itself in many areas.

(Message edited by michigan on October 08, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3430
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 1:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

DC? Marion Barry, oh wait sorry. Maybe the entire frigging federal government is what saved it? Especially since the purse strings are controlled by the feds. Even with all that, drive around DC, it is still a burned out husk of itself in many areas.



Yeah--just like the federal government saved DC from declining through the Sixties, Seventies, Eighties, and Nineties. You're obviously and painfully unaware of how little the federal government cares about the District.

Keep making excuses for Detroit, though. See how much that accomplishes.
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 1794
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 1:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You are correct, transportation is the biggest problem. However, I would still put crime as a close second, a very significant problem.

I am not saying that crime is an insignificant problem in Detroit. My position is that it's not the most significant problem, and it certainly isn't primarily responsible for Detroit's heavy population loss.
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 3459
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 1:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If transportation is the biggest problem in Detroit than Detroit is doomed because there is no source for the billions of dollars needed to build a system.

The other problem is transportation to what? Do we need a rail system to provide transportation to all of the empty buildings in the city? Never mind the fact the entire area was developed around personal transportation for the most part.

Detroit prospered in the past without mass transit. The streetcar system died for a reason. The failure of the People Mover also left a bad taste in people's mouths. If that is the idea of a transit system, forget it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Oldoak
Member
Username: Oldoak

Post Number: 34
Registered: 09-2007
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 1:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

6nois -- true about over inflated prices -- in at least one case I have knowledge about; Crumbling old Victorian building, owned by a man who has several crumbling buildings, couple BEGGED him to sell it -- he won't budge off his porch with his booze buddies to accept an offer less than one million. When people see dollar signs they sure can go batty. Meanwhile the property gapes open and abandoned. Stupid.
Top of pageBottom of page

6nois
Member
Username: 6nois

Post Number: 530
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 1:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I would disagree, a large part of Detroit's populations loss was sprawl, and public transit could have held that down, as well as prevent the sprawl that did happen from moving so far out. In the NYC area something like 90% of all development is within 1 mile of a subway stop. One can reasonably assume that it would be easier to repopulate and jump start Detroit if there was public transportation because it makes getting around cheaper and easier for all citizens. So I think development of public transportation along with working out the tax to service ratio in the city would be huge steps to bringing Detroit back.
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 1796
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 1:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Never mind the fact the entire area was developed around personal transportation for the most part.

Please stop lying. If this was the case then why are buildings being razed for parking downtown when it's a lot less dense than it was during it's heyday?
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3431
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 1:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

If transportation is the biggest problem in Detroit than Detroit is doomed because there is no source for the billions of dollars needed to build a system.



Well, other than the federal government, which is spending billions on New York's Second Avenue Line alone. But, you can't get what you don't ask for.

quote:

The other problem is transportation to what?



How about jobs???

quote:

Never mind the fact the entire area was developed around personal transportation for the most part.



Patently false.

quote:

Detroit prospered in the past without mass transit.



When was this?

quote:

The streetcar system died for a reason.



Which is?
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 3460
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 1:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well that is a chicken and egg argument. Did the transit system fail due to lack of riders because people were leaving the city. I must say the only time I hear about people citing mass transit as the panacea to solve all of our problems is on this forum.

In the real world, it is on the list somewhere but not that high up. I don't find it odd that a region whose main industry was building cars found itself relying on personal transportation more.
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 3461
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 1:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Danindc -

What jobs? The region is designed around the automobile, I am not talking about just Detroit here. Detroit was doing well in the 1950's, the streetcar died around then. If anything the decline in the city killed the transportation system not the other way around. You need RIDERS to support a system.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3432
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 1:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So the DSR had no ridership in 1956, just as the 140,000 people a day who ride DDOT in 2007 are inconsequential?
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 1797
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 1:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You need RIDERS to support a system.

You probably also need management of the system that doesn't have competing interests with it's prosperity...
Top of pageBottom of page

Hutt
Member
Username: Hutt

Post Number: 26
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 1:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Don't forget the poor city services. I have a water main down the street that has been gushing for the past 5 days. If this were anyplace else around here chances are it would be fixed by now.
Just more waste--and a waste of time to call about it. Trust me, you will only get pissed off listening to them tell you "its on the list."
Detroit SUCKS.
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 1799
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 1:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Don't forget the poor city services. I have a water main down the street that has been gushing for the past 5 days. If this were anyplace else around here chances are it would be fixed by now.
Just more waste--and a waste of time to call about it. Trust me, you will only get pissed off listening to them tell you "its on the list."
Detroit SUCKS.


Doesn't that fall under Detroit Water and Sewage? The people currently investing money into extending a pipeline past Flint?
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 3462
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 1:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

So the DSR had no ridership in 1956, just as the 140,000 people a day who ride DDOT in 2007 are inconsequential?



Apparently not enough riders to warrant building more mass transit. Does DDOT make money or is it subsidized?
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 3433
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 1:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So even today, it's okay to tell 140,000 (mostly poor) people to go fuck themselves?

Does I-75 make money, or is it subsidized?

Food for thought:

quote:

Detroit

Detroit had eliminated all electric railway service by 1956, along with much of the ridership. The General Manager’s report in 1957 promised that “This was certainly a major step in the program of rehabilitating Detroit’s transit system, making it possible to continue making improvements in transit service by expanding express operations via Detroit’s growing expressway [freeway] system.”

The rail cars that were replaced were relatively new, fast, and profitable, with fares covering 148 percent of operating expense. Bus revenues at the time were only 107 percent of operating expense and declining. The ratio is now only 30 percent, despite one of the nation's first $1.00 base fares. Ridership has declined 88 percent since 1947 (22). With the loss of its transit riders, the city has lost its last major downtown department store. Recently, a new elevated rail loop has been built downtown, but it provides little home-to-work service. It was built to connect with a light rail line that has not been funded.



http://www.heritagetrolley.org/articleTennyson.htm

(Message edited by DaninDC on October 08, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 4224
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 1:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Back during KK's second election campaign, KK stated that DDOT only had a 70% attendance rate of its drivers and mechanics. This utterance raised some eyebrows, but DDOT was probably even then oversupplying Detroit with bus service, albeit replete with waste because of the 30% daily truancy of DDOT's workforce.

The bus stops don't have many, if any, passengers except for those that are morning and afternoon work-related. Except for certain routes and times of day, the typical bus is rarely crowded.
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 3464
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 1:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

So even today, it's okay to tell 140,000 (mostly poor) people to go fuck themselves?



No, but it means that there is no money to expand the system. I-75? That is paid for by people from all over the state and even the country.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroit_stylin
Member
Username: Detroit_stylin

Post Number: 5118
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 2:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Even those that have no cars nor use them eh PG?


Sounds fair to me...
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 852
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 2:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

PG is apparently not aware that every public transportation system in North America is subsidized, and not paid for 100% by its own users. This is also true, of course, of the roads; I have to pay taxes to support the maintenance of I-96 even though I absolutely never drive on I-96.

Toll roads are the only kind of transportation infrastructure on this continent that pay for themselves. Taxes support everything else.

LY, you are not seeing the buses I ride. About half the time I'm on a bus, DDOT or SMART, it is full to standing. There are some lightly-used routes, but those create their own problem. If a bus only comes once an hour, that discourages people from riding it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 3467
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 2:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

PG is apparently not aware that every public transportation system in North America is subsidized, and not paid for 100% by its own users.



Actually I am aware of that. The question becomes to what degree?
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 3468
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 2:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Even those that have no cars nor use them eh PG? Sounds fair to me...



Do you really want to have a discussion about taxpayer subsidies for services that most of us don't use?
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitsuperfly
Member
Username: Detroitsuperfly

Post Number: 105
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 2:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Perfect gentleman "Totally unrealistic. I would not sacrifice my family or their quality of life to save a city."

But you'll demand other families do that for Baghdad? Please go immediately to Ebay and buy yourself a spine.

(Message edited by detroitsuperfly on October 08, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman

Post Number: 3469
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 2:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Please go immediately to Ebay and buy yourself a spine.



I am not demanding anyone go to Iraq. I support the volunteer military. If and when they decide Iraq is a lost cause I won't argue with them. As it is, that is not what they are saying, in fact progress is being made. Please buy yourself a brain.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroit_stylin
Member
Username: Detroit_stylin

Post Number: 5120
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 2:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

quote:

Even those that have no cars nor use them eh PG? Sounds fair to me...



Do you really want to have a discussion about taxpayer subsidies for services that most of us don't use?




Please by all means and don't get argumentative or rationalize when I post other 'entitlements' that most of us will never see yet we pay for...
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitsuperfly
Member
Username: Detroitsuperfly

Post Number: 106
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 2:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

" If and when they decide Iraq is a lost cause"


Most of the world has

Volunteer army? They go in as volunteers, but anti-troop republicans keep them in against their will and ALL military deployment standards by increasing combat time from 12 to 15 to 18 mos, then shorten re-deployment time beyond military standards.

Volunteer? You're amazingly amusing!

You haven't posted one true fact in the dozens of posts I've seen of yours. You should be embarrassed, but somehow you are arrogant. Simply amazing!