  Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 2155 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: Hmm. So should we use eminent domain on the Ren Cen? lol. | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 357 Registered: 04-2006 |
So in your mind the first order of business is to raze the city to the ground and hand it over to corporations, and the second order is to think about maybe saving some stuff? Sounds like mid-century urban renewal to me. | ||
Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 13 Registered: 11-2007 |
I dont think you guys understand the way this process works. there is a balance. I also took a historic preservation class. For historic preservation obviously things need to be saved and they will. It's really not hard to get certain things historic preservation status. Its just a legal process. but for just some random store that hasn't done any real business in forever, and some developer wants to create a project that would spill onto tat space, for sure tear it down. Obviously the Ren cen is still somewhat productive and is doing something for the city, and it would be really hard for someone to come in and show how after all the tear down it a new project would be more successful. Detroit is in the pits and needs to get out. My intial plan was tocompare New orleans to detroit but i ran out of time. Our economic stats are worse than theirs and they had a hurricane! and they have an aggressive eminent domain policy i nplace. If they can come back and we can't thats pathetic. unfortunately, by the time we can see the side by side comparison to see definitevly which plan makes more sense, it will be too late. | ||
Gnome Member Username: Gnome Post Number: 363 Registered: 08-2007 |
The Supreme Court of the State of Michigan ruled that Hathcock and Poletown were unconstitutional land-grabs. You are arguing against established case law. You offer no new arguments, no additional facts, nothing other than a convoluted logic presented in a bloviated tone. The worse part is that you think it's fine. http://www.mmbjlaw.com/CM/LawB ulletin/MichiganSupremeCourt1. asp | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 3562 Registered: 10-2003 |
Perhaps they don't teach this so much in law school as they do at CCS, but if you put something up for a critique, and somebody gives you their comments, don't defend yourself against every single one. It makes the entire process pointless. Just take what they say under consideration, maybe you will act on it, maybe you won't. | ||
Belleislerunner Member Username: Belleislerunner Post Number: 380 Registered: 12-2003 |
The Ren Cen comment was a joke, I'm sure. Everyone agrees there is a balance. But you have to be equally careful not to label everything old as "historic preservation". Many old things are merely representations of their place in time and not worth keeping. | ||
Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 14 Registered: 11-2007 |
i know what the supreme court decided. I spent over 4 pages detailing this. I realize that I'm arguing against established case law. the michigan constitution has also been amended to reflect this change. did anyone read what i wrote! the last section headed "Implications for city of detroit" offers arguments for why this is bad policy. it's a bit silly to say that it is convoluted logic since many of my facts are taken from other articles. You are allowed to argue against estalished case law. its called wanting to overturn legal precedent. And it happens. Hathcock is a case taht overturned the judgement in Poletown, which was the policy in place for over 20 years and the policy I'd like to revert back to. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 2156 Registered: 04-2006 |
>My intial plan was tocompare New orleans to detroit but i ran out of time. How does metro New Orleans stack up against metro Detroit economically? Honestly, I didn't read the paper so I'm just commenting on the comments. As for whether the eminent domain policy is detrimental to Detroit's redevelopment? At this point, I'd say not really. Has there been a company/major corporation interested in relocating to the city that hasn't done so because they couldn't acquire the land they wanted/needed to build? I find that hard to believe. IMO, it's the transit (and sprawl policies), stupid. These other cities like NYC and Chicago have these eminent domain policies because their development patterns put land use at a premium. In and around Detroit, land is cheap. | ||
Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 15 Registered: 11-2007 |
I was hoping to get a good dialogue going here. so anyone who is going to make a critique is going to have to defend their comments as well. as I will. doing it point by point is the most logical way of doing it, as the critiques were listed point by point. of course not. historic preservation needs to be limited too as its been proven to be economically inefficient. | ||
Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 16 Registered: 11-2007 |
not sure how the paper was written in a bloviated tone. perhaps you just disagree with the conclusion? or it bothers you to see hardline facts that blow up your belief that detroit is on the right tracK? | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 358 Registered: 04-2006 |
Why can't developers buy land on the open market just like everyone else? If they can't get all the land they need they should redesign the project or build it somewhere else. This is especially true in Detroit, where there is no shortage of vacant land or empty buildings. If a speculator is sitting on a building and letting it rot, it should be condemned *cough* MCS *cough* but otherwise, it shouldn't be up to the government to decide which buildings are being used productively enough and which ones aren't. If a store is still open after 50 years, it must be doing something right. As for historic preservation, I feel that the city's cohesive fabric of neighborhoods, to the extent that it still exists, is worth preserving as a historical asset as much as any individual building. Tearing down entire neighborhoods for every big development proposal that comes along is a far more effective way of destroying a city than any amount of blight or economic crisis. | ||
Jiminnm Member Username: Jiminnm Post Number: 1507 Registered: 02-2005 |
"You still need to have a rational reason for eminent domain (although it is a low threshhold). For example, you couldn't tear down a successful business for a more sucessful business." Why not? Under the definitions you seem to be advocating, doesn't a more successful business have a higher public purpose than a business that is merely successful? Who decides what's the better public purpose and where to draw that line? Once you the standard so low, there is no standard. One of the many problems I had with Poletown is that it basically set no standard and there was no legal commitment from GM to deliver on its promises or penalty if it didn't. It's not about people's memories, it's about how much you're willing to let the government decide what the people need in terms of economic development. Also, I haven't read Blais' article, but stringing together the comments on disproportionate impact you included make no sense to me -- redevelopment will be concentrated on areas rightfully considered blighted, that will adversely impact poor and minorities, redevelopment should be spread to other areas. Sounds like he's recommending that areas that don't otherwise need to be revitalized should be redeveloped anyway to "share" the burden. Basing economic development on demographics instead of real need is poor planning and will likely fail. Following that approach will likely lead to no redevelopment. Poletown destroyed neighborhoods that were viable and cohesive, when others in the city were not. That worked real well. As for style, I agree with Gnome. It's one thing to provide the law and the cites, but you just lay them there with little connecting, clarifying or explanatory language. As a result, the paper doesn't flow and it isn't easy to read. It's generally easy to find sources that support the point you want to make. It's not easy to put that info together in a manner that reads well, is cohesive in its approach, and sways the reader to your position. Your just doesn't do it for me. When I read the papers I wrote in law school 20+ years ago, I find some that meet all those criteria and I sometimes scratch my head and say "huh, what was I thinking?" I've taught law students who turned in similarly written work as yours. Given grade inflation, though, I'd expect a C. | ||
Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 17 Registered: 11-2007 |
perhaps land is cheap. not sure what holdout problems we have. but all you need is one holdout to have a problem. Of the development wanted in hathcock 19 people stopped a 1300 acre plan. I'm not sure if there has been a corporation who wanted to build but couldn't since they couldn't get the land. What I do know is that if i was being objected and asked for advice by a company, i wouldn't tell them to come to detroit for the very fact that comparative cities don't have the same policy. Metro N.O. is crushing metro detroit at this point. It's actually quite embarassing. Unemployment is ridiculous in the metro area. just look at the recent figures from bls.gov. Developers can't necessarily buy land on hte open market since there are holdout problems. Redesigning the project and building elsewhere were acknowledged in my paper and explained why its bad. It leads to inefficient development and increased urban sprawl. Of course, we aren't tlaking about blight. You can still use eminent domain for blight. I think that when circumsatnce are such as they are, the gov rightly has the authority to choose when land can be put to better use. Let's be honest, detroit is in major trouble. a 50 year old store that is open, but making no money, is better off as a CVS. Then i suppose we differ on outlook. You seem comfortable with a constantly bankrupt city with no economic future as long as you get to keep your neighborhoods, while i would rather ensure our survival and am comfortable with the idea of new neighborhoods popping up by displacement. Again, not ever development would be approved. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 2157 Registered: 04-2006 |
I find it very hard to believe that metro New Orleans GDP is anywhere near that of metro Detroit's. I'll have to look into that one... | ||
Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 18 Registered: 11-2007 |
we have ridiculously high unemployment rates. | ||
Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 19 Registered: 11-2007 |
that said, i was more interested in making a dramatic comparison, since they are both really in dire straights, have lost half their populations, have many of the same social race economic issues, are also historic. its was almost like saying if n.o. can come back from a hurricane we've got no excuse for being in the shits and we ought to start changin. | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 359 Registered: 04-2006 |
Again, if the holdout is a speculator letting the building rot, then by all means condemn the property. If the holdout is a whole neighborhood of regular people who just want to keep their community, then the taking of that land is an abuse of eminent domain. If developers are so inflexible that the vast tracts of open land available in the city do not satisfy their needs, then they're either flat-out incompetent or they don't know or care about the city and its needs. We don't need that kind of development. Why do you think I'm comfortable with the city as it is? I agree, something needs to be done for the economy, but tearing down the whole city and handing it over to corporations isn't it. I don't understand how a store can go 50 years without making any money and still be open. Unprofitable businesses tend to close pretty quickly. And I certainly don't understand how replacing such a store with a chain whose profits end up in Woonsocket, Rhode Island is sufficiently beneficial to the city to justify the city government buying out a corner-store owner at taxpayer expense just to build another CVS. CVS is not going to save Detroit. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 2158 Registered: 04-2006 |
we have ridiculously high unemployment rates. Even so, Detroit has a very big economy. This is what I pulled from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The GDP is only available by metro up through 2005. As you can see, metro Detroit's GDP is well over 3 times as big as NO's GDP: Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI (MSA) 198,630 New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA (MSA) 61,911 | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 2159 Registered: 04-2006 |
This is 2004 pre-Katrina: Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI (MSA) 193,493 New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA (MSA) 58,782 http://www.bea.gov/regional | ||
Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 20 Registered: 11-2007 |
Apparently you've never heard of taxes. when companies make money in a particular state, they pay taxes to that state. It's also called job creation. people with jobs make money and also pay taxes on that. Again, we hold drastically different views. in your second scenario, if there was a huge development in the works and they needed to the land that the neighborhood was on, and the economic conditions were as they are no, then by all means, take it. Detroit needs all the help they can get. obviously, this policy would be reexamined as economic conditions improved. Seems as though chicago and nYC have figured out a way to do this without pissing off too many people. They don't hand it over to corporations. the owners still get paid for what their land is worth and the company then pays the gov for it. there is no taxpayer expense. its just that they trump hold outs. 50 year old stores can stay open as long as rents remain cheap, and the people owning it have nothing else better to do and have low costs of living. a business in that same location that could make 20 times the amount of money make sense to me. Again, planning development around things as opposed to creating development and implementing it as planned is simply more efficient. we don't need developers who necessarily "care about this city". we really need anything. historic preservation will make sure nothing too bad happens. | ||
Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 21 Registered: 11-2007 |
what is gdp per person | ||
Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 22 Registered: 11-2007 |
even so, look at that growth rate you can infer from the facts you cited. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 2160 Registered: 04-2006 |
I'm not denying that Detroit has issues going on with it's economy. My point was that 1) Detroit's economy is much larger than NO's, and 2) Detroit's economy is not accurately represented by what happens within Detroit's borders, whereas I'm not sure that's the case in NO. | ||
Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 23 Registered: 11-2007 |
sure larger is fine, but who cares about absolute terms? Perhaps, but the fact that unemployment is sky high, compared nationally, all around our metro area is not a good thing. | ||
Gnome Member Username: Gnome Post Number: 364 Registered: 08-2007 |
Pal, if you can't see how wrong you are, no one can help you. You are tone deaf. This can't be the only time in your life when this has happened. It must be an established pattern, and while I give you credit for sticking to your points, you are well on your way to a pretty lonely life. What some examples of being tone deaf? - your screen name is impossible to fathom. - you put your paper on some site that is buggier than a Haitian whore. - you expect DY forum bloggers to take hours out of their lives to read your paper and then comment on arcane minutiae. - your writing style is a mess and then you fail to even consider others might be right. - you offer silly arguments / examples that are not based in concrete examples. (The mythic 50 year old building replaced by a CVS is an example.) You are soooo defensive that it is a turn-off. The facts on the ground are clear. In Poletown a neighborhood, a way of life, was destroyed. Lives were altered forever. Friendships crushed and an entire community disappeared. It was a shameless example of Big Brother stepping on the necks of those who couldn't defend themselves. Mothers and Grandmothers were pulled from their homes, children uprooted, traditions truncated - all for an auto plant that had other options. If you can't see how wrong that was, no one on this forum can help you. | ||
Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 24 Registered: 11-2007 |
the screen name is actually an inside joke and was borrowed from someone else. didnt want to register for a site i didn't expect people to and put a warning on how long it was in the thread title so people could choose whether or not to invest their time. my writing style is not a mess (i have a lengthy and successful academic career that suports this) its called illustrating a point for purposes of discussion. its an exercise that highly educated people undertake. discussing hypotheticals so you can anticipate future problems and address those issues before they happen is called being smart. Yes, people get displaced. this is called change. Cities with long storied traditions seems adept at making this transition. the world does not exist in a vacumn. again, another simple minded detroiter who can't see the error in their ways and resorts to nostaliga and personal attacks when logic fails. (Message edited by onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme on November 12, 2007) | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 360 Registered: 04-2006 |
If we're all so simple-minded, why bother with us any longer? Go destroy someone else's city. | ||
Mackcreative Member Username: Mackcreative Post Number: 122 Registered: 08-2006 |
The Detroit metro economy has been married to huge corporations for almost a century, maybe a successful future for the city isn't facilitating other big corporations and huge developers looking for giant tracks of land cheap. The future I want to be part of is individuals, small groups of people, neighborhoods; people working together to make things better. I get the feeling that this paper was posted under false pretense--looking for praise as the person that finally figured out how to "fix" Detroit, instead of truly looking for critique. FYI: calling people names just because they don't agree with you is juvenile. | ||
Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 25 Registered: 11-2007 |
I bother since I'm from detroit and have an interest in trying to get the city on the right track. Seems as though the city is already destroying itself right now. I'm trying to save it. | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 361 Registered: 04-2006 |
So do you also qualify as "another simple-minded Detroiter?" Or does that blanket stereotype only apply to Detroiters who disagree with you? |
