  Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4048 Registered: 03-2006 |
Perception is shaped by reality to a large extent. quote: The policies on sprawl wouldn't matter if Detroit was a desirable place to live. People moved for a reason, as they continue to do today. Mainly for crap like this thread has discussed. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 10522 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: I couldn't disagree more. quote: People started leaving Detroit in mass numbers in the mid fifties. That doesn't support your claim. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1902 Registered: 04-2006 |
The policies on sprawl wouldn't matter if Detroit was a desirable place to live. People moved for a reason, as they continue to do today. Mainly for crap like this thread has discussed. Then why has no other city that has been as large or larger than Detroit, all of which experienced the exact same crime problems as Detroit, lost as much of it's population? | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4051 Registered: 03-2006 |
I guess you guys want to ignore the hundreds of posts on this board from the people that have left the city and the reasons they gave for doing so. That said, I agree that not all of us are cut out for city life, regardless of how nice the city may be. With North Oakland being as beautiful as it is with all of the lakes, of course people were going to live there. But that should not be a problem for Detroit because if it was a desirable place to live, there are plenty of folks who DO prefer city life that would move in to offset that. Chicago is an example, thriving suburbs and thriving city. Much of the middle class stayed because although there are areas in the city that are "rough" there are plenty of others that aren't. Detroit has some good areas too, more and more hopefully. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1904 Registered: 04-2006 |
^Nice spin move... | ||
Umcs Member Username: Umcs Post Number: 183 Registered: 06-2007 |
lheartted, Although I don't agree with sprawl, I think the point is that if Detroit was a desirable place to live, we wouldn't have this issue. I think you're intimating that sprawl exists due to racism rather than crime. If you think Chicago, Atlanta, Boston, D.C. or New York are fully integrated at the neighborhood level, please point me to the studies. Segregation is alive and well my friend. It's just Detroit seems to deal with it much differently than the rest of the country. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 10524 Registered: 10-2003 |
PG - How does the mass exodus starting in the mid fifties mesh with your opinion? | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4053 Registered: 03-2006 |
There were some people who moved out in the 50's, I would imagine the riots in 43 were a factor as well as most people owning cars made it feasible to live in the country and commute to work. Some folks don't like big city life, me included. That said, that shouldn't have hurt Detroit much and it really didn't until the 67 riots happened and then it was game over. The timing was horrible for that because people like me who were kids at the time knew we would never move to Detroit after that. I really don't know who it serves to demonize the people who left the city, it is a free country. Every area has to remain competitive, Detroit has not. People are still leaving, and some are coming in. The cycle continues. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1905 Registered: 04-2006 |
Although I don't agree with sprawl, I think the point is that if Detroit was a desirable place to live, we wouldn't have this issue. I know that was his point. My point is that if it weren't for the sprawl happy policies, Detroit might be a more desireable place to live now. I think you're intimating that sprawl exists due to racism rather than crime. If that's what I wanted to say, I would have said just that. If you think Chicago, Atlanta, Boston, D.C. or New York are fully integrated at the neighborhood level, please point me to the studies. Segregation is alive and well my friend. It's just Detroit seems to deal with it much differently than the rest of the country. Which further exclamates the point! Detroit wasn't some integrated utopia before the flight. It was segregated just like any other city of it's size and diversity. So why didn't other cities that faced the exact same social issues as Detroit, experience such a dramatic population decline? Detroit isn't the only city that had riots in the late 60s. It isn't the only city that high crime in the 70s and 80s. It is the only city of it's size to lose so many people. (Message edited by iheartthed on October 18, 2007) | ||
Detroitbill Member Username: Detroitbill Post Number: 345 Registered: 09-2006 |
People just basically live where they want to because its comfortable and it is a free society last time I checked. We all have our priorities. When I visit friends in the burbs most tell me they love where they live and couldn't live in the city. (A few say they would like to try the city downtown). I drive home downtown and can't wait to get away from the burbs. When I get in the elevator many times residents say to me out of nowhere how much they love to live Downtown . Many of them have lived in my co-op for 20 plus years and have no intention of moving. I really think to each their own, and I dont think more or less of either attitude. Your life goes best when you place yourself where you need to be. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4056 Registered: 03-2006 |
Agreed ^^ | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 2700 Registered: 07-2004 |
http://www.econ.wayne.edu/agoo dman/5800/week12/Improve.htm | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 2447 Registered: 06-2006 |
"I know that was his point. My point is that if it weren't for the sprawl happy policies, Detroit might be a more desireable place to live now. " I always take issue with this argument....you're basically saying that peoples' honest natural desire was to move out of the city to the suburbs, and that what SE MI should have done is prevented them from doing so, regardless of what they wanted... All the suburbs did was give the people of SE MI an option...and after looking at this option, the could have decided the city was more desirable....but they didn't..they decided the suburbs were more desirable... SO the real question, the only question, is what caused the people of SE MI to CHOOSE the suburbs over the city? | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 10525 Registered: 10-2003 |
Cheaper taxes and newer infrastructure sure helped the decision of many. Those are results of our poorly managed, unfairly strcutures region. | ||
Umcs Member Username: Umcs Post Number: 184 Registered: 06-2007 |
What Citylover posted provides the answer. Better and more efficient services, safety, and administration of governmental functions for lower costs. | ||
Umcs Member Username: Umcs Post Number: 185 Registered: 06-2007 |
Jt1, What are the poor management and unfair structures in the region that you're alluding to? | ||
Swingline Member Username: Swingline Post Number: 926 Registered: 11-2003 |
Det_stylin is a long-time forummer and is not an asshole. But this was an asshole post in response to a couple of posts that were genuinely thoughtful and sought reasonable debate: quote:Indeed, perhaps stylin's post could be described as reflecting a "typical" victimhood-like mindset. Naw, probably not though. He understands the truth and he's got it all figured out. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 10526 Registered: 10-2003 |
Poor management is having a lack of regional focus. Allowing every city/township to exist in a vacuum has gotten the region to where we are now. Unfair structures are the financial structures that put an undue burden on older cities due to legacy costs, outdated infrastructure, etc that results in higher taxes. Our tax dollars are paying for new roads all over the state that allow new areas to be developed that have the luxury of brand new infrastructure with no legacy costs form pensions, health care, etc. There is encouragement to move further away because taxes will be cheaper and the inf. will be new as opposed to the poorly maintained inf. of older communities. Look at the taxes of older communities compared to newer as well as the roads, lighting, bridges. The best way to reduce taxes and get a new area in SE MIchigan is to keep moving further out. Detroit has been hurt by this and other communities are beginning to feel it. I would love to see a map of SE Michigan that shows ages of a community and their taxes. I don't want to make this a Detroit issue as it affects inner rings and older outlying communities. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1907 Registered: 04-2006 |
All the suburbs did was give the people of SE MI an option...and after looking at this option, the could have decided the city was more desirable....but they didn't..they decided the suburbs were more desirable... No. No one ever prevented anyone from driving down a dirt road and building a house on an open field. There is a difference between doing that and driving up a newly paved and taxpayer funded road (paid for by whom?), picking out a plot and pointing to the house in a booklet that you wanted built on that plot. SO the real question, the only question, is what caused the people of SE MI to CHOOSE the suburbs over the city? Part of it was the home loan (and insurance) structure that steered certain people towards the suburbs. Part of it was the destruction of city infrastructure with freeways. A big part of it was dismantling of the mass transit system... has it EVER dawned on anybody how such a densely built downtown was constructed and thrived without mammoth parking structures and surface lots on every corner?! | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4061 Registered: 03-2006 |
The people in the suburbs that are benefiting from the infrastructure in the outlying areas are paying more in taxes at almost every level. Suburban tax dollars also subsidize the city. I am not sure where you are getting the notion that taxes are low in the suburbs. quote: We have property rights in this country. Are you implying people should be prevented of living where they wish? | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1908 Registered: 04-2006 |
We have property rights in this country. Are you implying people should be prevented of living where they wish? You missed the point. Most people who moved to the suburbs didn't drive down a dirt road and build a house on an empty field. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4064 Registered: 03-2006 |
Right, and they paid their fair share to have that road built. | ||
Umcs Member Username: Umcs Post Number: 186 Registered: 06-2007 |
Jt1, This is a Detroit issue. How can Detroit avoid losing its population to the suburban communities and how can it reverse the trend. The management of the region is atrocious. There's no cohesive plan in place. There is no "master plan" to drain Detroit of its population and tax base. What's happening is that smaller, rural communities are soaking up the refugees from Detroit and the other suburbs. It's people exercising their freedom to choose where to live. Those choices are being made easier because of our massive freeway system but frankly, they'd be made even easier if there were reliable mass transit. Mass transit would literally kill Detroit. At some point, Detroit has to get over the fact that is an older city with massive infrastructure problems and deal with it. If it needs help, it has to make a compelling case to the rest of the region/state why they should help it. Pointing the finger and blaming the suburbs doesn't help. Acknowledging that there is massive mismanagement within Detroit and that it has to be dealt with first is the only way this city is going to get past its history and be able to honestly stand up and recoup its people and legacy. I just don't see that happening with this current administration. By the way, the whole "taxes are everything" argument is wrong. GP averages higher taxes than Detroit but still manages to hang onto its population. Rochester Hills has higher taxes than Sterling Heights but people move to that higher tax neighborhood. I don't buy taxes as being the issue. Perception and belief in the quality of services and safety are the issue. (Message edited by Umcs on October 18, 2007) | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1909 Registered: 04-2006 |
Right, and they paid their fair share to have that road built. :::banging head against desk::: I quit. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1910 Registered: 04-2006 |
At some point, Detroit has to get over the fact that is an older city with massive infrastructure problems and deal with it. If it needs help, it has to make a compelling case to the rest of the region/state why they should help it. Pointing the finger and blaming the suburbs doesn't help. You want a compelling reason? Michigan's shitty economy. Name one state that right now with an attractive economy that isn't touting it's big city (or it's neighoring big city)? | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4065 Registered: 03-2006 |
Iheartthed - I know this is the constant refrain on this forum that Detroit residents somehow "subsidize" the suburbs. The problem is nobody has made that case with facts. Here are a few. Roads are paid for to a large extent by federal dollars and through revenue from the gas tax. Median income in Detroit is about 30 grand per year. The tax rate on that is x. Median income in Novi as an example is about 75 grand. Tax rate and total receipts per resident is y, much higher. Suburban folks in the suburbs drive more and buy more gas. Total receipts from the gasoline tax is x. Suburban folks pay for city water and many Detroit residents do not. Are you getting the picture? That is not even begin to take into account the amount of taxpayer dollars flowing into the city from Medicaid, Food stamps, AFDC, Welfare etc... Also suburbanites who work in the city pay City income tax even though they have no representation in city government. So if you have some numbers that might illuminate your position, please share them. (Message edited by perfectgentleman on October 18, 2007) | ||
Umcs Member Username: Umcs Post Number: 188 Registered: 06-2007 |
That's not exactly compelling lheartted. Advertising is just packaging and puffery. If that's the case, send me $20.00. I'm hurting economically. I'll put it to good use in making sure to mention good things about Detroit to my friends in New York. | ||
Umcs Member Username: Umcs Post Number: 189 Registered: 06-2007 |
PG, The 'burbs don't subsidize Detroit any more than Detroit subsidizes the 'burbs. The UP receives about as much social welfare tax dollars as Detroit. Subsidization doesn't exist in a significant manner that even justifies this argument frankly. It's a non-issue. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1911 Registered: 04-2006 |
You're talking about 2007. How did those roads get built in 1950 before people started leaving? There was no tax base out there yet to pay for all of that. That's how Detroit chopped off it's own foot. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1912 Registered: 04-2006 |
Advertising is just packaging and puffery. If that's the case, send me $20.00. I'm hurting economically. I'll put it to good use in making sure to mention good things about Detroit to my friends in New York. Well why did New York City just spend $30 million on an ad campaign to be run on European television? You know what, I already said I quit. I quit! |
