  Detroitman Member Username: Detroitman Post Number: 907 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 216.78.41.212 |
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/c gi-bin/news.pl?newsId=7953 SEMCOG: Detroit topped region in new residential development By Anjali Fluker Feb. 13, 2006 5:31 PM The city of Detroit led the region last year in new residential development, based on building-permit data collected by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. This was the first time in “a long time” that Detroit topped the region, although the city has been among the leading communities for residential construction in the past few years, according to a SEMCOG news release. Detroit’s 1,039 housing units permitted for 2005 represent an 11 percent increase over 2004. Detroit has averaged about 1,000 housing units a year since 2003. “Along with the revitalization of the commercial aspects of downtown Detroit, these numbers show promise for the revitalization of both downtown and neighborhood residential development,” Paul Tait, SEMCOG's executive director, said in a news release. “This is a clear demonstration that even in these tough economic times, housing in Detroit is at least competitive with housing in the suburbs.” Following Detroit was Macomb Township with 814 new residential units in 2005 and Canton Township with 805. Final numbers are still being collected, and a final residential-construction report is expected to be released in April, the release said. Data collected from communities throughout the seven-county SEMCOG region is available at www.semcog.org by clicking on “building permits” from the data drop-down menu at the top of the home page. | ||
Shave Member Username: Shave Post Number: 1013 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 205.188.116.137 |
Hopefully, the city will top itself this year. Very encouraging news for Detroit. Does anyone else feel that the worst is finally behind Michigan? Perhaps its just the renewed optimism since the city and region was able to pull off a successful Superbowl. I don't know why I feel this way... | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3175 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.172.95.197 |
I don't know what to think of SEMCOG anymore. On one hand, their population predictions seem to say that not only is the population loss not slowing down, but may have accelerated. On the other hand, they are prediciting these huge gains in residential space. I know you can add housing without filling it up, but I don't know what to make off all of their numbers anymore. By their count, Detroit is down to, what? 888,000 or something like that? That's a suppossed loss of over 50,000 person in just 5 years which would signal an acceleration in the loss, which I just don't believe. | ||
Sharmaal Member Username: Sharmaal Post Number: 713 Registered: 09-2004 Posted From: 69.14.76.187 |
Well, I'm not a demographer. But maybe it's related to people staying single longer (or divorcing more often). Even though there is less population, a family of four used to stay in one house. Now a "family" of four whose adults have seperated now occupy two units. That might be part of it. | ||
Digitaldom Member Username: Digitaldom Post Number: 429 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 69.14.238.105 |
Doubt that.. More than likely cheap housing is spuring the increase in Detroit Housing. Literally a house in Detroit IS WAY cheaper than even the suburbs.. But of course you have to factor in CRIME, EDUCATION, CRIME, and did I mention CRIME! | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3177 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.172.95.197 |
While smaller household sizes have effected just about every city in the country, in most cities, these residents are being replaced with singles, or immigrants with larger families. But, Detroit's population loss problem is much larger than simply smaller household sizes. There are thousands of families just packing up and leaving altogether. If it were just smaller household sizes the population count would still be much higher. | ||
Sharmaal Member Username: Sharmaal Post Number: 714 Registered: 09-2004 Posted From: 69.14.76.187 |
My fault, I read Detroit meaning Metro Detroit. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1568 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.164.127 |
I think you need to do a little research most new housing in Detroit is going for 160 a Sq/f and up which is more than what I see in the burbs. | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1569 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.164.127 |
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20060214/NEW S01/602140313/1003 | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 52 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
It's been a bunch of years since I last renewed my real estste broker's license, but still keep my ears and eyes open. New development generally requires vacant lots or demolition. Newer - meaning less old - houses in the suburbs still have decades of potential future use. Therefore, common sense would lead one to assume that new housing starts will not occur in any significant numbers in Detroit's suburbs. Those houses would be sold "used," as is. It doesn't take a genius to observe that the city of Detroit probably leads the nation in urban/suburban vacant lots or derelict properties. How much of the new housing starts will receive generous property-tax abatements? Assuming this to be the case, the city services provided to those houses/lofts will be unequally borne by other property-tax payers in the city of Detroit. There's no free lunch for existing homeowners in his respect. (Message edited by livernoisyard on February 14, 2006) | ||
Merchantgander Member Username: Merchantgander Post Number: 1571 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 150.198.164.127 |
Untrue Livernoisyard, you are making the assumption that this isn't new revenue. Even if there is property tax abatements getting 66% is still more revenue for the city then the 0 dollars the city was receiving from the empty lot. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 54 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
Zero revenue money in is most probably accurate, but there still will be costs expended by the city or county that will be subsidized by other property-tax payers. Therefore, it will take some time for long-time residents elsewhere to break even. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 3696 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 141.217.174.229 |
YAY! More Detroit Housing, and not enough good jobs to fill. | ||
Vas Member Username: Vas Post Number: 488 Registered: 01-2004 Posted From: 24.180.76.186 |
As Honest John says, "The only people making money are the ones printing those 'New Loft'" signs. I can't wait to pick up a loft for $500 a month! | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 56 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
The lofts in Mid Town are going to be occupied by people who work nearby and can afford them. Therefore, they'll be riding on the backs of the rest of Detroit's residents - the real taxpayers. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3187 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.172.95.197 |
How are those that buy lofts and such as their primary residence in greater downtown not "real" Detroiter's? Don't their taxes go to the same city government that every other Detroiter's taxes go to? Are they not working and living in the city? In fact, a significant amount of 'real' Detroiter's, as you want to call them, actually don't work in the city. It's rare that I'm taking the side of the new transplants, but that word 'real' doesn't make much sense, unless you really want to get expand on that and use a more appropriate word. Or, unless you meant by inner-ring suburbs as those who work "nearby." | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 60 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
How do you sat "Let them eat, err, pay (property) taxes!" in French? |
