 
Trainman
Member
Username: Trainman
Post Number: 713
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 8:59 pm: |    |
Maybe if SEMCOG decided to not spend $2 Billion on 25 miles of new freeways but instead spent the exact same $2 Billion on the SPEEDLINK Framework for Action 259 miles of light rail along major corridors radiating out from Detroit that we can actually make our region more attractive to getting good paying jobs to locate here? Then, maybe house prices will then go up in value? |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 7180
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 9:14 pm: | |
As SEMCOG is made up of locally elected officials from all over Southeastern Michigan, clearly they didn't feel that funding a light rail system for Detroit only was providing the best bang for the buck for area residents. SEMCOG does not exist to fund the pet projects of a few Detroiters. They are dealing with what commuter patterns ARE, not what some would wish them to be. |
Mwilbert
Member
Username: Mwilbert
Post Number: 288
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 9:58 pm: | |
You can't build 259 miles of light rail for $2 billion dollars.
On the other hand, some regions might build infrastructure to shape future commuting patterns, not to reinforce the existing dysfunctional ones. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 7183
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 10:16 pm: | |
Dysfunctional according to who? Future commuting patterns based on what? Should we just assume that Detroit is going to see a massive resurgence in private sector investment? On what do we base that assumption? |
Parkguy
Member
Username: Parkguy
Post Number: 294
Registered: 04-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 10:59 pm: | |
Decide where the best spots are for future development based on existing infrastructure investments (airports, highways, rail junctions, water lines, etc) and build there. The development will follow the new transit infrastructure. That has proven to be the case in city after city. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 7186
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 11:17 pm: | |
It is a chicken or egg argument. You can put lipstick on a pig I suppose, but to assume a rail line in Detroit in and of itself will spark a significant revival is presumptuous at best. The fundamental reasons that businesses and people invest in an area would still be severely lacking. Transportation is important, but so is public safety, good city services, good schools, good housing, retail, etc. Would it all magically appear and change the image of the city by putting in light rail? I doubt it.
If it were that easy I would think it would have been done already. In fact if building light rail were a panacea I would think entrepreneurs would be clamoring to have it built. If that is happening I haven't heard about it. The fact is that many light rail systems that have been built around the country have produced mixed results, many have not met ridership estimates, some are costing far more than projected and others are being opposed outright even in areas like Wash DC where mass transit is already in place.
It is basically a very expensive proposition that is used to transport a relatively small number of people. Unfortunately it also has to be subsidized by taxpayers who will never even use the system as the fares are not sufficient to support these systems financially.
It is probably for these reasons that many projects never get past the talking stage.
(Message edited by perfectgentleman on June 24, 2008) |
Danny
Member
Username: Danny
Post Number: 7421
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 1:00 am: | |
I you want to see suburban blight, go to Dearborn. There are two streets located on the corner of Michigan Ave. and Wyoming St. Two Dearborn neighborhoods with only a few houses remains and couple of vacant houses. The Dearborn City Council refuse to have new housing units to be built there. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 7200
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 1:03 am: | |
By that logic does that mean Detroit should prohibit all new development because there are thousands of abandoned homes and buildings already there? Should developers be told that only renovation is acceptable? |
Mwilbert
Member
Username: Mwilbert
Post Number: 290
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 8:10 am: | |
Detroit should prohibit development in seriously blighted areas, and try to get any remaining people and businesses to move out of them. All development and rehabilitation efforts should be concentrated in the more viable areas. If and when those better candidates begin to run out, new areas should be selectively opened to redevelopment. |
Sean_of_detroit
Member
Username: Sean_of_detroit
Post Number: 911
Registered: 03-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 9:23 am: | |
That doesn't seem to make sense to me. For starters, many of the areas where people want to live have the most blight.
What areas would close off? The ones surrounding downtown are the best candidates for renewal. So you are left with areas outside the Grand Boulevard Loop. The problem is that to many people live there. There aren't many areas where it makes sense to close them off. |
Cub
Member
Username: Cub
Post Number: 516
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 9:44 am: | |
You are kidding. Right Mwilbert? Where would the people go. I know some people think Detroiters own their homes but there are a lot that do. Are they suppose to just give up their homes just to have an area shut down. |
Mwilbert
Member
Username: Mwilbert
Post Number: 292
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 11:44 am: | |
I was not kidding, although I would be the first to admit that there would be many difficulties.
The city would have to help people relocate. They don't have the right to make people leave, but they can buy them out and/or find them new places to live. The city can't afford to provide adequate services everywhere, but concentrating people into a smaller area should allow everyone to have better services and keep those areas more vibrant.
I have believed this for a long time, but it isn't like I am the only one--for instance there was this Free Press column in April which as I read it says basically the same thing.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20080420/COL 33/804200547/1081/COL |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3238
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 11:51 am: | |
Even now at half capacity Detroit is still one of the most densely populated cities in the country. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 7231
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 12:15 pm: | |
Yes, we need to herd everyone into ever smaller spaces like farm animals. All we would need to do that is a totalitarian government that restricted where people can live and work. Oh, and we need to eliminate those pesky private property rights the nation was founded on. |
Gogo
Member
Username: Gogo
Post Number: 1438
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 12:35 pm: | |
Rethinking the Country Life as Energy Costs Rise |
Plymouthres
Member
Username: Plymouthres
Post Number: 611
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 12:40 pm: | |
Mwilbert-
Just because you aren't the only one advocating your idea about halting re-development and "herding" people into one area doesn't make it sound practise. I, like Cub, can't really believe that you would even suggest this as an alternative to the current policy, as it is not viable! Many difficulties is an understatement.
I understand your desire to locate everyone to one are to better serve their needs, but that is an impossibility in Detroit, and America for that matter. People like the selectivity of CHOOSING where they live, be it blighted or not.
Also, with the current situation in city government, do you think that they could do anything for anybody correctly? The suggestion that you make would cause wide open areas of abandonment. What do you propose happens to those areas? How do you take people that are already established in the areas that are blighted and relocate them to the new area?
Lastly, who will provide the funding....no one has the cash that you would need to assure a program of that magnitude's success.
Good idea in theory, terrible in practicality.... |
Spacemonkey
Member
Username: Spacemonkey
Post Number: 772
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 12:58 pm: | |
Soon we will all be living the Amish lifestyle. Prepare for it fools. |
Gogo
Member
Username: Gogo
Post Number: 1439
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 1:23 pm: | |
quote:Soon we will all be living the Amish lifestyle. Prepare for it fools.
Or at least live like we did before the suburbs were subsidized. |
Craig
Member
Username: Craig
Post Number: 864
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 1:30 pm: | |
re: closing off parts of the City... urban planners were talking about this possibility 20 years ago, if only in the halls of academe.
Someone more enterprising than me can search the WSJ archives for an '07 article addressing Youngstown, Ohio's policy of consolidation (seems that there used to be a blog about how Detroit was slouching in the direction of Youngstown... I read that somewhere) |
Danny
Member
Username: Danny
Post Number: 7425
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 1:33 pm: | |
The movement of Blacks, Hispanics, Arabs and Indians sometimes contribute to white flight to suburban blight. Property values are on the all time low. It's a ILL resolution but it's working real good. |
Sean_of_detroit
Member
Username: Sean_of_detroit
Post Number: 913
Registered: 03-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 2:12 pm: | |
Thinking about this relocating thing more made me laugh.
It would make about as much sense (and be equally feasible) to pay the suburbanites to consolidate and live closer together. They would be able to have better services that way.
Of course, the suburbanites already made a choice to leave the city. So maybe the answer is just everyone re locating to the suburbs. That would be just as good.
I like that you are thinking, but think it's a horrible idea... Sorry. |
Spacemonkey
Member
Username: Spacemonkey
Post Number: 775
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 2:16 pm: | |
What if we relocated Detroit City to the suburbs and the suburps to Detroit City? Would that help? |
Registeredguest
Member
Username: Registeredguest
Post Number: 387
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 3:18 pm: | |
"What if we relocated Detroit City to the suburbs and the suburps to Detroit City?"
I would relocate the suburps to the subfarts. |
Spacemonkey
Member
Username: Spacemonkey
Post Number: 779
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 3:21 pm: | |
Are the subfarts near Fart Plaza? The suburps are near the old Vernor's plant. |
7051
Member
Username: 7051
Post Number: 116
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 4:22 pm: | |
Relocation is un-American. Instead, consider a plan that would remove all or almost all 64 mills of city tax in areas when there is one or only a few houses per block. People in these areas can then elect to hire their own private security if they wish, contract for garbage, etc. Fire protection (in Michigan) is the only difficult service to contract out for. A 5 Mill fire tax could be left in place. It just doesn't make sense to repave a street, provide police, fire, etc. when a single block may only generate $1,000 a year in property tax. It sounds drastic but these are drastic times for Detroit. The small number of good, tax paying areas can no longer subsidize a large number of little tax generating areas.
The city would need to inform these areas of the reduction in services and tax reduction. In fact, as a city employee I can tell you that the current administration is already cutting services to less desireable areas. The problem is that they are hiding this and not letting these residents know. The daily 6-12 fire companies that are closed are always in the poorest, oldest areas. Unfortunately, fires are rampant in these areas.
Resources can then be used to stabilize areas. I see it everyday at work...the dopeman is setting up shop in decent areas while police and other services cannot cope. Its not long before these areas on the edge fall into a nonstoppable, downward spiral.
In fact, give the choice to cut taxes and all services in even good areas. My neighborhood has 1,400 homes x average prop. tax of $4,500 and average income of $90,000 per household(per census website). I am almost positive that the residents of my neighborhood would definitely choose private services. In addition, this month marked the beginning of the University District, Palmer Woods and Sherwood Forest combining our private security contracts. The new service will provide 3 sec. cars, 12 hours per day,7 days per week in these neighborhoods. The cost will be $350 per home and we need a minimum of 600 subscribers out of approx. 2000 homes to make it work. |
Mwilbert
Member
Username: Mwilbert
Post Number: 293
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 6:02 pm: | |
Relocation is as American as apple pie--people in the US move constantly. It would be surprising if most of the population of Detroit hadn't relocated within the past 10 years. I didn't and wouldn't advocate that relocation be forced (not that such a thing is unheard of) but there are plenty of ways the city can give people incentives to move without any coercion. It isn't like blighted areas are highly attractive places to live.
What most of the people commenting on this don't seem to recognize is that essentially this is what is going to happen anyway--more and more of the city is going to empty out, and what development occurs is mostly going to occur in the more viable areas. This is just a way to make that process cleaner and more transparent, so that people can make better decisions about where to live and invest their time and money and to help people who may feel trapped in some of these locations get into a better situation. Also, of course, it would help the city provide services better.
And yes, I think the same idea would apply to the suburbs as more areas there become blighted--in fact, what got this whole discussion going was Dearborn refusing to allow new residential development in a blighted area, although that area seems pretty small, so the rationale is likely different.
Now I don't believe the current administration would handle consolidation more effectively than they handle other things, nor do I think such an explicit plan to manage shrinkage would be politically feasible (certainly not judging from the reaction here!). I'd like to see it happen, and I think it would be better for the city than letting it happen spontaneously, but I'm not expecting it. |
7051
Member
Username: 7051
Post Number: 118
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 6:27 pm: | |
Forced relocation is un-American (that's what I meant).
Mwilbert, you are correct. Relocation by choice happens all the time.
Offering disincentives to stay are cheaper than monetary incentives to move. |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 2593
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 9:35 pm: | |
"Even now at half capacity Detroit is still one of the most densely populated cities in the country."
Now a days, density doesn't matter with the high xenophobia.
Times were safe and simple during the days of density. 
Now it's all about isolation and protection (Phoenix). |
Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1884
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 9:46 pm: | |
Cut taxes and then cut services. People will move on their own. As far as I know (I may be wrong), no one is ENTITLED to city services by law. Shut off the services, while of course removing the taxes for said services, and let nature/economics sort it out. |
Jerome81
Member
Username: Jerome81
Post Number: 1702
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - 10:21 pm: | |
If GM, and to a lesser extent, Chrysler, go under, it will make the current housing situation in Detroit look like the golden days.
Its painful to watch. I can't imagine being caught in a situation where homes won't sell for any price. It may be coming sooner than anyone thinks. Sales are imploding at GM, and cash burn has reached a ridiculous level. It won't be much longer now..... GM will come out of it. But it will probably be 2 or 3 divisions, with a far far fewer number of white and blue collar workers, and all the trickle-down jobs they create. And you know they're probably gonna end up leaving Michigan. |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.