  Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3589 Registered: 10-2003 |
Officially, the DWSD has a policy (in effect since 1998) that communities to receive new service must pay for the infrastructure themselves. I'm not sure how well they stick to this, if at all. This doesn't excuse, however, that some posters on this thread reached a conclusion with half the information. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 3288 Registered: 10-2003 |
"Has there been a significant population increase in metro Detroit that the Census Bureau missed?" No, but there are a lot of potential customers who currently have wells. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 538 Registered: 02-2007 |
Quote: "you CANNOT make a definitive conclusion based on revenues alone." Now we know who is buying these 300 dollar claw hammers and 1100 dollar toilet seats. Dan, Truly, that is the dumbest statement I've read in a long time. Omitting my own of course. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 2020 Registered: 04-2006 |
No, but there are a lot of potential customers who currently have wells. I'd guess that is not a significant and relatively dispersed portion of the population. Was acquiring those customers really worth the cost of expanding the infrastructure? I have a hard time believing so, but what do I know... | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3590 Registered: 10-2003 |
^^^Ever hear of a benefit/cost ratio? | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4476 Registered: 03-2006 |
The cost of expanding the infrastructure was shared by the suburbs if not paid for outright. Honestly, The DWSD would not be continuing to expand to new areas if wasn't paying off for them. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1888 Registered: 10-2006 |
"As i read about other cities and the billions of dollars in transit flowing through their region, Im beginning to realize that our victorious past has truly broken us down to our knees, much like empires all around the world." To bad that Detroit doesn't want a part in the transit boom. Just another reason why Michigan pays more in taxes than it gets back at the Federal level. Yeah Michigan representatives and senators! Thanks for funding Charlotte! [sarcasm implied, of course] | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 885 Registered: 12-2006 |
What's interesting is that the expansion is certainly benefiting DWSD if we consider DWSD to be an organization unto itself, which it is not. The expansion, one could argue, has accelerated the population decline in Detroit, which harms the City overall, which DWSD is a part of. This is so bizarre and short-sighted that I can't even think of a decent analogy, and I've tried. The closest I can come is that it's like shooting heroin because it makes your brain feel good for a while, never mind the overall harmful effect. But that is a pretty weak comparison, I think. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1890 Registered: 10-2006 |
Regardless, the point of this thread is that transit spurs growth! Moreover, transit has spurred growth for the last like 100 years--think streetcar communities of the 1920s-1940s. Remember all of that growth that developed around the end of the rail lines? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3591 Registered: 10-2003 |
So, as I stated above, DWSD *does* have a policy of requiring new customers to cover the infrastructure costs of service. But, as anyone who has taken fluid mechanics will tell you, it costs exponentially more money to serve areas that are further out. It reasons that these increased O&M costs could possibly be spread among the entire customer base. In effect, those in the City would still be subsidizing the expansion of the system. There's still no guarantee of profitability, simply because revenues increase. Even more worrisome--who fixes the existing infrastructure when it needs to be repaired or replaced? | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4478 Registered: 03-2006 |
DWSD was merely capitalizing on the trend that was already happening. People were moving out anyway and the suburbs were expanding, why not at least get a new revenue stream out of it? It is not as if the flight from the city would have never happened if it weren't for the city providing water. There were and are other alternatives to city water. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3592 Registered: 10-2003 |
Ya think you could run a place like Great Lakes Crossing or Chrysler Headquarters on well water and septic tanks? Do ya? | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4479 Registered: 03-2006 |
Danindc - The more it costs the more people pay, the rates structures in each community allow for that already. There is never a guarantee of profitability, but clearly DWSD has elected to expand into dozens of communities over the years. They are not being forced to do this, they do it because they are making money. The city government would not be allowing it to happen were this not the case. Remember, the suburbs have little say in this, if they cannot meet the financial requirements of getting hooked up, they do not get service. There is zero incentive for DWSD to expand into an area if they know they are going to lose money. quote:  (Message edited by perfectgentleman on October 29, 2007) | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 3292 Registered: 10-2003 |
Dan, I don't think you will stop sprawl by refusing to expand the water system. I guarantee you the state will seize the water system one way or another if that happens. They've been eyeing it up and trying to take it for years anyway. Give 'em one more reason. BTW here's some interesting history. http://www.metrotimes.com/edit orial/story.asp?id=4268 "The issue came to a head in 1955 when Detroit water chief Laurence Lenhardt said Detroit would no longer add new suburbs to its system, capping service at the 42 cities then buying Detroit water. For the previous three summers drought had virtually dried up spigots in western Wayne County. Some areas had banned new housing, and industry would not locate in the area due to the shortages. Trucks were delivering water to residents. Lenhardt hung tough. He told them to build their own systems. Detroit, he said, was not going to sell them water that would facilitate the suburban exodus. A firestorm ensued. Business, civic and suburban leaders as well as the three Detroit dailies began a several years long review of how to best serve the water needs of the region. A six-county committee of political leaders, aided by the National Sanitation Foundation and the Detroit Metropolitan Regional Planning Commission (later SEMCOG) concluded that the City of Detroit should build the water system. Summarizing the prevailing view at the time, the Detroit Times editorialized that “the reason for unification of the water supply in Detroit’s department is because the Detroit system has the economic base — its present facilities and paying customers — to finance expansion. No other apparent combination of communities has such resources.” | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1892 Registered: 10-2006 |
Dan in DC, I am certain that the debate in this thread was switched over to the DWSD and away from the transit issue because some knew that that was an argument that Detroit could not stand up to and win. Sstashmoo, felt the need to change the topic of this thread, disappointingly for me. Meanwhile Detroit finds another category to continue to fall further behind in: public transit. To all those who are furthering this DWSD debate--NO ONE CRITIQUES DETROIT FOR HAVING A POOR OR DISFUNCTIONAL WATER SYSTEM. How is this DWSD more important than mass transit? | ||
Andylinn Member Username: Andylinn Post Number: 612 Registered: 04-2006 |
Professorscott, are you a professor at U-M? I think you might have been my brother's professor in the past (Rob Linn) - anyway, your comments about the water system being like heroin are spot on... we're shooting ourselves in the foot by even THINKING about expanding further... this massive sprawl is what is going to kill us. If nothing beyond the inner ring of suburbs existed, we'd be alot better off. thanks for building that extensive water system DWSD. (sarcasm implied) | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4480 Registered: 03-2006 |
Charlottepaul - Public transit is the most subsidized form of transportation there is. I think the point is being made that there are other priorities that should take precedence over it at this time. Public funds subsidize transit to the tune of $118.26 per thousand passenger miles. The feds get a $1.91 net PROFIT per thousand passenger miles from highway commuters. Again, DWSD was merely capitalizing on a trend that was going to happen either way. You folks are constantly trying to put out the notion there is some venal intent to develop in areas outside of the city. It doesn't occur to you that maybe folks don't want to live an a failed city so they are going elsewhere. They are also paying their own way in this process, there is no "subsidy" being paid by Detroit residents that is going to the suburbs. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1550 Registered: 07-2004 |
Right. Let's keep subsidizing air travel, highways, new developments, and other profligate wastes of energy. Sounds like a great idea. Pffft. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3593 Registered: 10-2003 |
PG, the "stats" you posted are bullshit. I haven't had time to finish the article, but I'll be thrilled to tear them apart when I do. Is that why you deleted that post? Because you know they're bullshit too? | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4483 Registered: 03-2006 |
The stats are from the Dept. of Transportation. It is not some op ed from a guy at the Heritage Foundation. Your entire premise is what is bullshit. I didn't delete any posts, there is another thread on this subject, they are there. For your convenience here is the link: http://www.bts.gov/programs/fe deral_subsidies_to_passenger_t ransportation/pdf/entire.pdf | ||
Umcs Member Username: Umcs Post Number: 336 Registered: 06-2007 |
And here's the funny part where A2 and Brighton (sprawl in other words) are putting together their own mass transit options. Good luck to them. http://www.metromodemedia.com/ devnews/wallya20042.aspx | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1551 Registered: 07-2004 |
The old-school line of thought is that Detroit is disinvested because it's undesirable. That's the tired line people keep repeating because it serves their interests, lets their troubled conscience off the hook, argues that it has nothing to do with their decisions. The new-school line of thought is that Detroit is undesirable because it's disinvested. Notice that it's mostly younger people doing the rejecting, as they have less invested in the "conventional wisdom" of race relations and urban poverty. To those of you who still argue the former: Good luck, you have your work cut out for you. Young people are rejecting the mythology of the older generation. And they're leaving. I hope you like your ideology better than you like regularly hugging your grandchildren. It's gonna get mighty lonely out there in your retiree paradise ... | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4484 Registered: 03-2006 |
quote: The cost is the same as paying for gas for your car? And it needs to be subsidized by MDOT too? Who is going to ride this train? Are there tons of people going to Howell from Ann Arbor and back every day? Of course you will also need to drive to the station. But what about the other end? Do you then take a bus to your workplace? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3595 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: What do you care? You won't be riding the God damned train anyway. Why do you find it necessary to force your lifestyle on everyone else? I thought you right-wingers were all about personal liberty and choice. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1894 Registered: 10-2006 |
"Who is going to ride this train? Are there tons of people going to Howell from Ann Arbor and back every day?" It really is a modern day requirement that light rail/tranist service can't be built until there is proof that there is demand for it. Around the early years of the twentieth century when street cars were present, communities grew up around the lines and stops--not the other way around. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3597 Registered: 10-2003 |
You can't have demand for a product that doesn't exist--something our "free-market" friends quickly forget. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4488 Registered: 03-2006 |
Charlottepaul - I am not imposing my lifestyle on anyone, that is your game. You are the one that wants to limit what people can do with their own private property and tell them they must reside in a city they don't want to live in. Let the rail service between Howell and AA begin, it should be interesting to see what the ridership is. I am saying from what I see, there is not a compelling reason to use it from the individual rider's perspective. | ||
Umcs Member Username: Umcs Post Number: 337 Registered: 06-2007 |
PG didn't read the article. PG obviously hasn't sat in the parking lot called I-96/US-23/M-14 during rush hour, which starts at 5:30 a.m. and ends at about 7:00 p.m. Tons of users PG. Tons of well-educated, youngish YUPpies and DINKs live in Howell and Brighton and commute into A2. US-23 at rush hour = parking lot. US-23 with high volumes of traffic = increased maintenance costs. Either way, it's a catch-22. If it works, good for them. Oh, and don't worry PG, it didn't get the Federal Grant that it had originally applied for. As for subsidization, yes, it's local communities subsidizing the mass transit. Kind of the reverse of our Partridge Creek Mall discussion. I figured if the local yokels were funding it, you might be happy. Guess not. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3598 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: You don't live on an island. For the benefit of the entire community, yes, there need to be some restrictions on property rights. No one of us is ever greater than the whole. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply a selfish prick. You can live where you damn well please. I just wish that city folks didn't have to continue subsidizing new infrastructure for newly-developed areas while their own needs go neglected. It'd be nice for Detroiters to not need a car, but since it would actually cost tax dollars to build transit, that's not acceptable to you, is it? I don't understand why some of you don't just up and move to a shack in the woods somewhere, if you want nothing to do with living in a civilized society. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1897 Registered: 10-2006 |
Well ironically enough I am a free-market friend and a Republican. Probably something that most people don't gather from my posts, my profession in architecture, or the urban neighborhood in which I live in Charlotte. But there does come certain issues were conservatives need to step outside of the party lines if they truly love the urbane environment. |
