  Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1968 Registered: 04-2006 |
There are really two sad things about this all: 1) each of these little rinky-dink governments are still fighting to be the center of it all, 2) there is so little going on in metro Detroit now that this development was allowed to dominate headlines for multiple days. At least the MGM Grand casino opening was unique on a national scale... but metro Detroit got another Calvin Klein store? Who fucking cares? Call me when something interesting happens around there again. When is the Book Cadillac reopening? | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 700 Registered: 07-2004 |
The entire Metropolitan Area of Detroit has less people now then it did in the 60's-70's. Infact Metro Detroit has never really grown since the 60's. The pop has gone up, gone down, gone up. But population has never gotten higher overall except for little blips, and then gone down again. So you are housing less people now then before. Sort of like Metro Pittsburgh. Pop may grow for a couple years, then go down, then go up. But you never get higher. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3546 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Here's your myth, UMCS, in convenient graph form: http://www.epa.gov/medatwrk/gr osseile_site/indicators/popula tion.html quote: | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3547 Registered: 10-2003 |
Yup, the good ole free market--just giving people what they want. No subsidies involved here, folks. http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=/20071011/METRO /710110375 quote: | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 523 Registered: 02-2007 |
""Here's your myth, UMCS, in convenient graph form:"" Dan, those number were projected through 2005 only. They dont reflect the crash of the last two years in the automotive and housing markets here. That council took a guess and missed it badly. No way is the population growing or stable now. There are empty houses all over the place. And no new ones being built. | ||
Umcs Member Username: Umcs Post Number: 291 Registered: 06-2007 |
Sorry DDC, poor grammar on my part. I should have said that the myth being perpetuated is that the population growth in SE MI is stagnant or declining. It is in fact growing overall. As for Mike, "The entire Metropolitan Area of Detroit has less people now then it did in the 60's-70's." That's not true in the least. The city of Detroit has less people now than it did in the 60's-70's. Our "metro area", thanks to sprawl, is now out to Howell at the extreme edge. Heck, people commute to Livonia now from Bay City or Toledo. The U.S. Census in 2000 found that the Detroit–Warren–Flint Combined Statistical Area (CSA) had a population of 5,428,000. If you count in Windsor, Ontario, you're up to about 5.9 mil. This doesn't include Toledo. By way of comparison, Dallas Metro Area is 6 mil, DC is 5.3 mil, Atlanta is 5.1 and Phillie is 5.8. The SE MI area is not decreasing in population. It's expanding in size. This is where the sprawl argument comes into the picture and I agree, our regional sprawl is getting ridiculous. To say that our population has declined is incorrect. Our population has moved out of the cities and into the 'burbs. | ||
Umcs Member Username: Umcs Post Number: 292 Registered: 06-2007 |
DDC, And here's your sign that you didn't read the full text: "City officials are eyeing roughly $3 million in upgrades for the area -- all funded through the district. Special assessment districts allow businesses in a specific area to collect tax revenues for improvement projects. The Lakeside Shopping District would include 45 parcels of land, more than 30 owners and cover the mall itself and the surrounding ring of businesses. The council could set the assessment rates for property owners in the district as early as their January meeting." | ||
Spartacus Member Username: Spartacus Post Number: 253 Registered: 07-2005 |
Dan, why do you have a problem with that? This is not a subsidy per se, rather a group of business owners are pooling their money to improve the area. I did not see anything in the article to suggest that anyone other than the businesses directly benefitted would contribute anything to this effort. This is effectively a BID. Do you have a problem with those generally? I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3548 Registered: 10-2003 |
Oh, I read that. It's similar to Tax Increment Financing. That's 3 million bucks that won't be invested in other things--simply because Lakeside has to compete with the new POS. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1970 Registered: 04-2006 |
Dan, those number were projected through 2005 only. They dont reflect the crash of the last two years in the automotive and housing markets here. That council took a guess and missed it badly. No way is the population growing or stable now. There are empty houses all over the place. And no new ones being built. Correct. MSA pulled from the Census Bureau...  Detroit showed the smallest positive growth of the top 25 metros in the country between 2000 and 2006. There were only two metros with negative growth in the same list (Cleveland and Pittsburgh). I think the 10% was a bit-o-wishful thinking and creative marketing from SEMCOG in the first place tho... | ||
Spartacus Member Username: Spartacus Post Number: 254 Registered: 07-2005 |
I'm with Dan. The government should preclude all proper owners outside of the City of Detroit from spending one dime to improve their property. If we can confiscate the money that these people were going to waste on their own property and instead force them to spend it within the City limits then we can get guys like Dan to consider moving here. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3549 Registered: 10-2003 |
^That's not the position I'm advocating. I simply don't believe it's fiscally (or environmentally) sustainable for the State and localities to go out of their way to build all sorts of new infrastructure at a rate faster than population growth, and *especially* not when the existing infrastructure goes neglected. Anyone who's driven on a Detroit-area freeway knows this just a bit too well. Of course, with the mall opening, there were articles in the press last week. The Detroit News had a graphic, showing TWENTY-EIGHT large-scale retail projects currently under development in the region. How much shopping do you really need--especially when existing retailers are already dipping into their profits just to remain competitive? I just don't get it. Detroit is stuck in the 1950s mentality, and I honestly can't even fathom why. It's not like this attitude has wrought great success. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1971 Registered: 04-2006 |
^Study: Incentives promote sprawl, inefficient land use http://www.crainsdetroit.com/a pps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2006 1206/SUB/61206013 | ||
Umcs Member Username: Umcs Post Number: 293 Registered: 06-2007 |
DDC, The failure in Michigan, Metro Detroit, and other regions is that we relied on manufacturing for our jobs. In all actuality, there has been one benefit of sprawl. Property values here and the costs of living haven't skyrocketed like they did in San Fran, Chicago, Seattle, NY, Dallas, Atlanta, or DC. You can live in Detroit on a $15.00/hr job and actually own a house. | ||
Umcs Member Username: Umcs Post Number: 294 Registered: 06-2007 |
lheartthed "the study does not take into account brownfield redevelopment tax credits that generated private investment of more than $3.6 billion during the course of the study period, nor does it show community development block grants that have helped redevelop city centers. The study also does not examine the state’s tax-free renaissance zones located in center cities and urban areas, he said. Shore said the study misses the point of state economic-development efforts. “The overriding truth about economic development … is that when we look to do deals, we look to bring them to Michigan or keep them in Michigan, rather than seeing them go to Indiana, Alabama or Texas,” he said. “And when we talk to companies, we don’t point them to one jurisdiction over another. We do our darnedest to sell center city locations, but in the end, it’s the company that decides where they want to locate, and what works for them.” That last paragraph is kind of a key there. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3550 Registered: 10-2003 |
^If you can get that $15/hr job (or get *to* it). The flaw in that argument, however, is that equity built by rising property values in other markets can be freed up as investment capital. Not to mention the added revenues that jurisdictions realize. DC, for example, achieved an additional $100 million surplus due to higher-than-expected property tax receipts. That's a hell of a lot of money that can be leveraged toward redeveloping neighborhoods. Iheart, thanks for that link. I found this quote most telling: quote: In other words, everyone bitching about the recent tax increases should pay attention. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1973 Registered: 04-2006 |
“And when we talk to companies, we don’t point them to one jurisdiction over another. We do our darnedest to sell center city locations, but in the end, it’s the company that decides where they want to locate, and what works for them.” That last paragraph is kind of a key there. True. VW, Comerica, Spirit Airlines, etc., chose another state. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4260 Registered: 03-2006 |
Dan - You have come pretty close to advocating that some sort of regional government should control who builds what where. Truly that would be the only way to implement what you are saying here. You decry the lack of regional cooperation yet the residents and city government within Detroit only seems to be interested in that when they want money for things they cannot afford. Any other time it is pretty much "mind your own business." This attitude is on display every day on this forum. Sorry, but developers in the outlying areas are not going to check with your or the city before they decide to invest. They are going to do that where they feel they can maximize their return. This of course doesn't mean that people shouldn't or won't invest in Detroit too, but the city needs to be doing a much better job on many levels before that is going to happen on a large scale. In terms of providing the specifics as to how NYC was turned around, there are reams of information on that and it has been discussed on this forum many times. I would think someone like yourself who claims to be knowledgeable on these matters would be more than familiar with how NYC was transformed during the Giuliani years. (Message edited by perfectgentleman on October 24, 2007) | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 949 Registered: 01-2005 |
First Danindc. Now, Miketoronto, who must be his clone. Not one ounce of real world experience between them, I'll bet (I know Dan doesn't.) Know everything about everything. Mike says: "There was no need for that mall, plain and simple." [Dan agrees.] What unmitigated nonsense. This from 2 guys who probably don't have 2 dimes between them. Why do the rest of you folks give these guys any credibility at all by responding to them? (I"m guilty as well I guess.) The new Mall was developed and is owned by the Taubman Company, which developed and still operates Lakeside. (I'm a preferred shareholder, by the way, and I continue to buy more.) The Taubman company is the most successful shopping center developer in the world, and currently is operating even in China, and as I recall, Korea.) Al Taubman made billions and his son Bobby, who now runs the company, is doing as well or better than Al. Maybe I should pick up the phone and call Bobby and tell him he's made a big mistake and that Miketoronto says there is no need for the Mall, and I'll make sure to tell him that he should have recognized that before he built it because it' so "plain and simple" it wasn't needed. "Bobby, dummy, why are you pissing our money away by building a shopping center that isn't needed?" But, I won't because I don't want to ruin his day by dropping that bombshell on him. I vote for imposing residency requirements on this site before being permitted to post here. How about requiring residency in the real world? This planet? | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 525 Registered: 02-2007 |
PG, Downtown acting like they want new businesses would be a start. They seem to actually penalize new business. They should have incentive packages for small to medium businesses to attract growth. What do they do instead, charge higher taxes and provide no services, thats not an incentive. | ||
Xd_brklyn Member Username: Xd_brklyn Post Number: 329 Registered: 10-2003 |
"The Taubman company is the most successful shopping center developer in the world" Ah, that's a pretty large statement to make considering you also have Simon Property Group, Inc., who's aggressive takeover attempt of TCO was not that long ago. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4268 Registered: 03-2006 |
I guess Mike and Dan would say Simon Property should be shut down for promoting sprawl as well. Minnesota didn't really "need" Mall of America did it?  | ||
Wsu98 Member Username: Wsu98 Post Number: 13 Registered: 03-2007 |
3rdworldcity I thought GGP owned lakeside, can you please confirm? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3551 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Developers only build what the zoning and building codes legally allow them to build. There's such a thing as property rights, and then there's heavily subsidized "growth" at the expense of existing areas. Amazing how many people live in bubbles. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4277 Registered: 03-2006 |
You keep talking about "subsidies" but you are pretty short on facts. If certain infrastructure is built to foster new development, it follows that additional tax revenues will result when the project is completed. Using your logic, no infrastructure should be built at all. I am sure the residents in the city of Detroit (and elsewhere) "subsidized" some of the developments in and around the Fox and the stadiums in some way, do you think they regret it? No, because they are betting that new revenue will flow in to offset the "subsidy" in the long run. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 950 Registered: 01-2005 |
Wsu98: You are correct. I meant to say that Lakeside was developed and IS operated by Taubman. I would have been wrong about the operation part had I stated it the way I tried to. That property has gone through much transition (as you obviously know). It is now owned by General Growth but I was under the impression TCO still had an operating interest. They have not, for awhile. (That center was "put" to the GM/GE pension funds in a complicated transaction several years ago and although ownership was transferred, TCO continued its management. I guess when General Growth acquired it TCO relinquished the management after its contract was up. Sorry for the confusion. Xd_brklyn: I did not say TCO was the largest in the world, I said it was the most successful. (There are several larger.)That's why Simon tried to acquire Taubman, whose centers have the highest per square foot sales in the industry, overall; there are a couple of individual centers (The Shops At Ceasars in Vegas, for example, and possibly Somerset)which have higher per sq ft sales. Overall, on a value per center basis, Taubman is the most successful over the years. Dindc: You say: "Developers only build what zoning and building codes allow them to build (WRONG.) There's such a thing as property rights, and then there's heavily subsidized "growth" at the expense of existing areas." What the hell is that supposed to mean? Gibberish, to me. Do you consider yourself as living in a bubble? Why not? | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1974 Registered: 04-2006 |
I thought GGP owned lakeside, can you please confirm? So did GGP... http://www.ggp.com/Properties/ MallDirectory.aspx?smuid=745 | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3552 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Show me where the tax revenues cover the cost of said infrastructure improvements. If this were true, as you claim in spite of reality, then the State of Michigan would be flush with cash, and probably one of the wealthier states in the nation. quote: Only when there is a positive Return on Investment. quote: Explain. What did I state that was false, and WHY or HOW is it false? quote: No. Probably because I spend my professional time involved in the construction industry. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4280 Registered: 03-2006 |
quote: You are implying that the shortfall in the budget is caused by maintaining and building infrastructure. What you fail to realize is that doing that is the sign of a growing and prospering area. Cities and states that are thriving are spending gobs of money on infrastructure and it is paying off. Are you really trying to say that malls and the like do not generate revenues for the communities they are in? Lay off the pipe and get a clue. They create jobs for people who then pay taxes on the income, the owners of the businesses pay taxes on their revenues, the consumers pay sales taxes, the property owners pay property taxes, the commuters pay gasoline taxes and other surrounding businesses benefit as well. There are many other things in the state budget that are causing the deficit. We spend money on many things where this is virtually no return on the investment like Medicaid and AFDC. Do we need to do it? Yes. Do we get any revenue in return? Not much. Is their fraud? You bet. (Message edited by perfectgentleman on October 24, 2007) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3556 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Source? If the Detroit area is prospering, I don't want to live in a failing area! quote: You might want to learn to read before you try to argue a point. I said that the revenues generated by sprawl development almost never cover the costs of infrastructure. I could link to any number of nice, progressive, "green" sources for this information, but let's go with a business approach: the Sacramento Business Journal. quote: quote: quote: http://www.bizjournals.com/sac ramento/stories/2005/11/14/dai ly9.html Does it seem reasonable that sprawling development like this new mall is able to generate tax revenues of $50,000 per person in the next twenty years? |
