  Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3514 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: It's entirely possible. That kind of money could be spent on higher education, public transportation (to get people to jobs), environmental cleanup, health care (mental and otherwise) or a whole plethora of other "quality of life" issues. If the developers of this plastic bullshit go elsewhere, who cares? There's more to economic "growth" than continuous paving of cornfields and such (or *is* there???). It's not like Michigan has a growing population. How much replication do you need? quote: Pure speculation on your part based on your ideology. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4174 Registered: 03-2006 |
So all tax dollars that are paid state wide should go into Detroit, regardless of what the residents who are paying them want. OK, got it. | ||
Chitaku Member Username: Chitaku Post Number: 1663 Registered: 03-2006 |
i was just there and it made me want to puke | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3515 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Well, the residents of Detroit want decent roads to drive on, and transit service to get to jobs in the suburbs. Does that matter at all? High school kids would like to be able to afford a college education. Sick people would like to be able to see a doctor. Do you think maybe this is more important than subsidizing a wealthy developer? In a region with a static population, public investments need to be targeted to areas with infrastructure that already exists. Michigan is just creating more bills for itself in the way of maintenance, when it can't afford to maintain the infrastructure it already has. And as far as public money influencing development goes, would you "want" to live somewhere with no roads, water, sewer, schools, or police/fire protection? | ||
Ray Member Username: Ray Post Number: 1029 Registered: 06-2004 |
As usual, I totally disagree with DaninDc, which always amazes me since I hate sprawl and love cities as much as he does. The trouble with sprawl is that: (a) it's value added capital investment (i.e., it's profitable at least in the near term) and (b) it reflects the preferences and desires of most people. This is why it exists and this is why simply saying "we hate it" will not make it go away. Suburbs consume road and sewer infrastructure, sure, but in the grand scheme of the whole GDP that's a spit in the bucket (my guess less than 5% of the economy). And they provide immense benefits in quality of life and productivity for those who live there and really don't see the attraction of living in a 3 flat. If suburbs really were an inefficient allocation of resources (speaking mico-economically), then the mighty market would not have built them. People who hate suburbs (me included) rant and scream against them but we are tilting at windmills. DC, Chicago, NY, SF, Boston and wherever all added up together house maybe 4 million voluntary (read affluent yuppies) urban dwellers. The rest of the inhabitants live there because they can't afford to live in the suburbs. But those 4 million voluntary urban dwellers forget that there are 296 million other people in this great country who do not share their preferences and would rather raise their families on a half-acre lot. Personally, I lived in SF with kids and it was hell, as much as I love the city. Dan and the other yuppies aren't moms trying to lug groceries down the street with two screaming children in tow. In just 24 months, my wife, an art expert who lived in 18 straight years in Manhattan, DC, Chi and SF, demanded to live the suburbs. And my experience is that this is very typical. If we want to expand the scope of urban living in America, we need to make cities a lot more competitive and we need to understand that just because we don't like the suburbs doesn't make them an invalid lifestyle for someone else. Michigan should have a revitalized Detroit but should also have great suburbs if it wants to be competitive. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3516 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: That is the ENTIRE point! It's not a MARKET when public subsidy pays for the infrastructure required to support this cartoon schlock! quote: For the developer, anyway. If sprawl were sustainable as you imply, then why do taxes keep going up in the townships? quote: Says you. Who did you ask? If this is true, tell me why a 100 year old rowhouse in Georgetown costs more than a brand new plastic piece of shit in Commerce Township. And why is it, then, that you never hear anyone brag about their vacation to lovely Fairfax County, or Riverside, or Northern New Jersey or Schaumburg? Give me a break! You can't have great suburbs without a great city. And I hardly think that Clinton Township is a "great" suburb--it looks just like anywhere else. The fundamental flaw in your argument, Ray, is that Michigan does NOT provide the urban option. It does, however, provide more-than-enough of the same crap you can find in the fringes of any other metropolitan area. | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 3582 Registered: 12-2005 |
Two malls a mile apart. I'm still scratching my head over that. Even if there were enough customers in that area for both (which would be fantastic for those businesses), wouldn't it have be even better still for them to have kept their distance from each other? Are these two malls differentiated in some way that would explain why their proximity wouldn't create problems for them? I must be missing something. (Message edited by Jimaz on October 22, 2007) | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 2490 Registered: 06-2006 |
"Two malls a mile apart. I'm still scratching my head over that." The same retailers generally wouldn't locate in both malls...this, of course, doesn't include places like Starbucks | ||
Carm Member Username: Carm Post Number: 65 Registered: 01-2007 |
There are some stores in Partridge Creek that aren't anywhere else in Michigan. | ||
Mcwalbucksnfitch Member Username: Mcwalbucksnfitch Post Number: 66 Registered: 10-2006 |
Sorry, this is going way back up there...but Udmphikapbob, exactly how many of us Falcons are on here? | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4176 Registered: 03-2006 |
Danindc - You seem to forget that taxpayers also subsidize Detroit, probably much more so than the suburbs. Development is based on demand. People are willing to pay more for homes, higher property taxes, and more in gas for their cars just to get away from Detroit. When city government truly addresses the issues, public safety being job 1, then people will move into the city again. | ||
Patrick Member Username: Patrick Post Number: 5077 Registered: 10-2003 |
Ya gotta understand that there will never be much of an urban option in SE Michigan. It's too scattered....in other words, the damage is beyond repair. I guess if people want "urban" they can be one of 150 loft dwellers downtown or they can move to a a place like NYC or Chicago. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 4438 Registered: 10-2004 |
And those loft purchasers downtown expect abatements from paying taxes for several years. At the same time, they require city services subsidized for them by those who live in Detroit but without any or as many subsidies. Does the concept of a free lunch enter somewhere? And at some point, they'll default on their mortgages and they will never pay taxes before the abatements expire. And we're supposed to provide a choo-choo for them so that they might cut off a few minutes by riding the train and then having to spend that time saved waiting at the bus transfer stop for the regular interconnecting buses? Doesn't this seem nutty for a financially busted city/region to provide such services when only some 2% use public transit for going to/from work in the tri-county area--3% in Wayne, 1% in Oakland, and 0% in Macomb? (Message edited by Livernoisyard on October 22, 2007) | ||
Billpdx Member Username: Billpdx Post Number: 47 Registered: 05-2006 |
I am tired of the argument that urban means not having a car, and living in Manhattan, SF, or Chicago... and if that isn't the life for you, clearly you want to live in Shelby Township. There are actually people living urban lifestyles in plenty of places, and they even have driveways and garages. Birmingham, Ann Arbor, Royal Oak, just to name a few. Unfortunately, proportionally it is a small amount of area, so the prices are very high in these places. There are entire states that have NO urban options, and plenty more that have only one or 2. Claiming that most of Americans don't want that kind of lifestyle is totally unfounded. Saying Americans can't afford that lifestyle or have no experience with it because there is so little supply of it? That's closer to the truth. | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 302 Registered: 04-2006 |
I'd agree with that, Billpdx. To me, a detached house on a 30-foot-wide lot is plenty urban enough. I'll take that living situation any day over a tiny, overpriced apartment in Manhattan or a McMansion on half an acre at 26 and Schoenherr. | ||
Erikd Member Username: Erikd Post Number: 918 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: It is often stated that people want to live in suburbs because they desire huge lots and open spaces. This misconception has been stated so many times, it is now widely accepted as a fact. In reality, the vast majority of suburbanites do not live in homes built on half-acre (or larger) lots. As for open spaces, you won't find many in the fully developed suburbs, unless you count the huge parking lots around big-box stores and shopping malls. The people that truly desire huge lots and open spaces want a more rural setting, as opposed to a typical suburban setting. The sheer number of suburbanites living in apartments, condos, trailer parks, and houses on small lots is proof that most people choose suburban living for reasons other than large lots and open spaces. Further evidence is found in the most desirable suburbs. The urban layout and style found in Grosse Pointe, Birmingham, Royal Oak, and Ann Arbor sets them apart from other suburbs, and their higher prices reflect the fact that this quality is valued, even in the suburbs. | ||
Umcs Member Username: Umcs Post Number: 276 Registered: 06-2007 |
Dan, "Well, the residents of Detroit want decent roads to drive on, and transit service to get to jobs in the suburbs. Does that matter at all?" Of course it matters but this is a rhetorical statement. The bigger question is why do they need to get to jobs in the suburbs? Why are there jobs in the suburbs? We're arguing in circles here and the creation of roads is not the only answer here. I'd say that if there was a viable mass transit system here in the SE MI region, Detroit would be dead in the water. It would make it easier for people to move out of the city and functionally operate in the suburbs at a reduced personal cost. "High school kids would like to be able to afford a college education. Sick people would like to be able to see a doctor. Do you think maybe this is more important than subsidizing a wealthy developer?" You are arguing that infrastructure costs are subsidizing development. This again, goes back to your flawed study (Op-Ed piece). Look at direct subsidies because it's dishonest to pretend that Detroit does not "subsidize" it's residents through local college taxes (WCCC anyone?), police, fire, water and sewer, etc. "In a region with a static population, public investments need to be targeted to areas with infrastructure that already exists. Michigan is just creating more bills for itself in the way of maintenance, when it can't afford to maintain the infrastructure it already has." Money goes where the people go. That is a fact of life. What you are doing is mandating where people can live by saying "Sorry, we don't provide public services north of 12 mile, or 18 mile, or whatever." This is ridiculous. "And as far as public money influencing development goes, would you 'want' to live somewhere with no roads, water, sewer, schools, or police/fire protection?'" I grew up in an area that received minimal "subsidies" from the government. No tax abatements, no brownfield redevelopments, no "greenfield" developments, no state offices or employees, nada, nothing, zip. You know what we did in that area? We built our own darn roads, water, sewer, schools, police, and fire and paid for it ourselves. If you advocate mass transit Dan, fine. I also advocate it since it eases traffic congestion, provides a low-cost solution to commutes, and it honestly does provide benefits to the community at large by providing points of development that the private development community cannot. However, throwing out misinformation is as bad as what mass transit opponents do. Be honest at least okay? | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 2499 Registered: 06-2006 |
Sounds like Taubman's malls are doing pretty good http://www.crainsdetroit.com/a pps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2007 1022/REG/71022007/1066/-/-/ten ant-sales-boost-3q-profits-for -taubman-centers | ||
Billpdx Member Username: Billpdx Post Number: 48 Registered: 05-2006 |
quote: What? Is today 'opposite day'? Nobody told me! | ||
Fareastsider Member Username: Fareastsider Post Number: 653 Registered: 08-2006 |
With all of the talk of Mass transit on here the amount of attention to it in this region is sickening. In downtown New Baltimore there is a stop and people just stand by a sign. With a decent investment we could build some decent bus stops at major crossings. Not just glass coverings but perhaps a small building or larger gathering area. There is nothing. In a downtown like in NEw Baltimore it could be a nice focal point or node to bring people in or make it a better option for somebody. The fact that NO town has done this is truely sad. There is no regional effort whatsoever to make it happen. Is there any nice bus stops at Partridge Creek sure to be a destination! HELL NO! Just consider the billions spent in the last 10 years on our roads in SE Michigan and consider that with just 1% of that invested money we could have built a better bus stop system. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4182 Registered: 03-2006 |
The proponents of mass transit and increased investment in Detroit should start gathering signatures and put their proposals before the voters. If support for these ideas is as popular as you claim, it should be pretty doable. If the folks who successfully got a dove hunting ban in this state were able to get enough people to sign up and get their proposal on the ballot so should the folks advocating mass transit. The state is run mostly by Democrats these days, I wouldn't think it would be a big problem. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 2506 Registered: 06-2006 |
^but then they couldn't sit around and complain about it all the time, and what fun would that be? | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 685 Registered: 07-2004 |
It makes no sense to built another mall so close to Lakeside. Most of the stores in that new mall are the same as in Lakeside also. I just don't how these chains make money. Actually maybe that is why so many of these chains are so bad on the economic front. Just to much in one place of the same thing. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 687 Registered: 07-2004 |
METRO Detroit needs a bylaw like the following that Cape Town, South Africa was looking into. This would be perfect for Metro Detroit, but would require a METRO GOV to handle. ---- Cape Town - The unicity council might in future require developers to substantiate why their development proposals - particularly those pertaining to big commercial and shopping facilities - are not likely to impact negatively on traditional business nodes, but would rather add value. If Cape Town Partnership's recent proposals, aimed at limiting urban decay particularly as a result of decentralisation, are accepted by the unicity, developers would have to indicate that all development options in the central business district had been thoroughly considered ahead of less central choices. The onus currently is on the local authority to prove why development cannot go ahead. These are some of the steps urged in a proposal submitted to the unicity council to prevent the unbridled development of decentralised retail and commercial developments to the detriment of established business nodes such as the Cape Town Central Business District (CDB). Other CBDs earmarked for preferential development and renewal include Bellville, Claremont/Wynberg, Somerset West/Strand, Paardevlei, Athlone, Mitchell's Plain and Khayelitsha. Cape Town Partnership executive chief Michael Farr maintains there are grave concerns that huge developments in other parts of the metropol are established without consideration of a strategic policy plan, and that these are increasingly threatening the economic viability of CBDs. This occurs as decentralised developments are tapping the economic basis of CBDs. The partnership believes a new or revised development policy should be instituted in order to set more distinct guidelines for the location and size of retail, office and commercial developments. Farr emphasised that the partnership was not trying to limit development elsewhere, but rather to encourage development in earmarked CBDs. He claims the proposals are based on international practices and were compiled to try and prevent development mistakes that were made elsewhere in the world from being repeated in Cape Town. ----- | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 4443 Registered: 10-2004 |
Putting limits upon development by governmental mandates is just another step toward regulation and socialism--noting new for a Canadian to propose, I reckon. More limits on competition would then be imposed by the government on private business. Which means that a local monopoly or oligopoly would be effected. Nice! For that particular merchant, that is... | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4231 Registered: 03-2006 |
quote: Bullshit. If that were true we wouldn't have the asinine service tax right now. The Dems are in charge and are doing a great job of running the state into the ground. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4233 Registered: 03-2006 |
Discredited by whom? You? That's funny. | ||
Detroit_stylin Member Username: Detroit_stylin Post Number: 5246 Registered: 10-2003 |
Prove that statement to be true... | ||
Umcs Member Username: Umcs Post Number: 286 Registered: 06-2007 |
Mikeintoronto, That is otherwise a good idea with the exception of how the Michigan Constitution works. Doing what you suggest means the state, city and/or local government is required to pay fair market value compensation to the owner of the property denied usage. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 690 Registered: 07-2004 |
I noticed that Perfectgentleman kept going on how people love sprawl and should not be denied the new mall, etc and all that. I never looked at this post as Detroit losing out by this new mall. What I see is a suburban region losing out because of this new mall. With the opening of this mall, all they are doing is diverting spending power from one mall to a new mall. Which means less money for the existing malls in that area of the region and Sommerset. So you tell me how that is good Perfectgentleman? There really is no need for another mall. So what if people have to drive 20min to Nordstroms at Sommerset? Its not like you have to shop every single day. And many other cities only have one high-class mall or shopping district. Why does Detroit need more in a region with stagnet population? The losers with this new mall is not Detroit. Its the suburbs and all the current malls. Metro Detroit already has ailing malls. So we need to add more to the list? Also by not putting a focus on a central downtown area, Metro Detroiters have not good selection at all when it comes to shopping, if you really think about it. Nordstroms in Metro Detroit malls, is only like 120,000 sq feet. While Seattle's main downtown Nordstroms is something like 500,000 sq feet. Metro Detroit has done nothing but built these malls everywhere, with the exact same stores, and crappy selection at that, instead of centralized areas with great selection and stores. The selection of goods one use to find in downtown Detroit and all the regional shopping strips, was unmatched, and will never again be seen in Metro Detroit unless the city somehow goes back to its heyday. Most American's today really don't have selection, and competition at all. We all controlled by all the same stores in the same malls throughout the country. (Message edited by miketoronto on October 23, 2007) |
