  Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 199 Registered: 12-2006 |
Bill McGraw had an interesting column on the topic which is here: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20070220/BLO G07/70220058 In Ontario the (forced from above) merging of communities has been going on for years now. There has been some wailing and gnashing of teeth but the program seems to be having a good effect. For a recent instance, all the communities in Chatham County, and the County itself, have all ceased to exist and are now the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. The New York City we know today is the result of an amalgamation of several cities, towns and villages and the four Counties of New York, Kings, Queens and Richmond, which occurred in 1898. The question for metro Detroit isn't whether communities should merge; they will have to. The question is what amount of merging should take place. It is too expensive for us to have over 120 communities in just the tri-county area. Curious what others think. | ||
Mayor_sekou Member Username: Mayor_sekou Post Number: 548 Registered: 09-2006 |
I think its a good idea and a bad idea the suburbs merging could give them more clout, which could be bad for the city. But if the city can merge with lets say Hamtramick, Highland Park, Redford Township, and the Dearborns that would be cool not only for the increase in population but the increase in land area. But of course im being optimistic. | ||
Corktownmark Member Username: Corktownmark Post Number: 256 Registered: 12-2004 |
It's seems as the wise one (itsjeff) predicted war with livonia is inevitable. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2599 Registered: 10-2004 |
If a little regionalization is good, then why not do it statewide, err... city-wide, and include the entire state into Detroit? And while we're at it, we take Toledo, as well. It'll then be a city-state like Hamburg Germany. Now that that's solved, what do we do with the mayor or governor? Do we keep both or which one to eliminate? And are those people feeding off the public trough now city employees or state employees? Do we keep them all too or add even more? Letting any of them go would smack of anti-socialism, and we wouldn't want that. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 12 Registered: 08-2006 |
Livernoisyard, you are correct. We already have county, state, and a federal government to overlap and coordinate the differing interests of local governments. Were it not so, a lot of roads would dead end. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 550 Registered: 10-2006 |
Yeah, area-wise, Detroit ranks up there pretty well in terms of square miles already. Probably makes more sense for Farmington Hills to merge with Farmington; stuff like that. | ||
Jdkeepsmiling Member Username: Jdkeepsmiling Post Number: 208 Registered: 01-2006 |
1. Redford-Redford Twp. 2. Farmington-Farmington Hills 3. Plymouth-Plymouth Twp 4. Northville-Northville Twp 5. Center Line and Warren 6. All the Grosse Pointes 7. Some conglomerate out of Lathrup Village, Oak Park, Huntington Woods, Pleasant Ridge, Berkley and Beverly Hills. 8. Woodhaven and Brownstown Twp. 9. Detroit could merge with Hamtramck and Highland Park. 10. Wayne and Westland | ||
1953 Member Username: 1953 Post Number: 1309 Registered: 12-2004 |
Everyone should merge immediately. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 496 Registered: 07-2004 |
Sure places should merge. Thats how our cities grew in the first place, my merging with suburban towns. Merging today would just be a continuation of that. As for Ontario, there was lots of problems with the forced merger. The main one being, rural and urban areas merged together. For example, Hamilton and Ottawa saw their city, suburbs, and then rural farm lands all merged into one city. So now the city has to not only deal with downtown things, but also farm issues. That is not right, and I really see no reason as to why the farm hamlets had to be merged with the big cities. The Toronto merger made alot of sense, as we already were mostly merged together due to the Metro Gov. Thats another thing you have to remember about the Ontario cities. Even before the mergers, the cities were already very close with their suburbs, due to the regional governments(Metro Gov) in place. All of Metro Ottawa for example was part of The Region of Ottawa-Carelton which ran metro wide services like transit(OC TRANSPO), schools, etc. Same with Hamilton. All of Metro Hamilton was under the Regional Hamilton-Wentworth, which again took care of regional issues. So these mergers basically took the suburban town and city governments, merged them together, and got rid of the regional government. So in a way many of these places where already sharing many services, etc. Thats just one thing to keep in mind. Windsor was one of the only Ontario cities not to get a merger with its suburbs. Windsor also has no regional government like Ottawa and Hamilton had. It only has Essex County. Here is a look at how the regional governments worked. This is from Wikipedia on the former "Region of Ottawa-Carelton" government which no longer exists as all the suburbs have been merged with Ottawa City. ----- "The Region, known as an "upper-tier" level of municipal government, was created to manage municipal services that crossed municipal boundaries and were more efficiently provided to residents on a regional, as opposed to local, basis. Over time, more and more services were transferred from the "lower-tier" municipalities to the Region and, by the end of the 1990s, 85% of municipal services were delivered by the Region. This included mass transit, policing, arterial roads, sewage, water, social services, garbage collection and Regional planning." To cut costs and simplify the government, all the municipalities of the Region were amalgamated to form the City of Ottawa "megacity" in 2001. This city retained many attributes of the Region, including most of its ward boundaries and the RMOC building, which became City Hall. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Municipality_of_Ottawa-Carleton" --------------- (Message edited by miketoronto on February 21, 2007) | ||
Goat Member Username: Goat Post Number: 9226 Registered: 10-2003 |
Correct Miketoronto, and like Detroit, Windsor is now hemmed in by suburbs AND farmland (that the other municipalities were able to gobble up) and does not have room to grow its manufacturing base. Thus Windsor cannot increase revenues. So it will be either property tax hikes or decreased services. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 497 Registered: 07-2004 |
Here is some info on the old Metro Toronto gov. As you can see, they already provided alot of services, before the merger. So this would be different in a Detroit merger, where services are not already provided regionally. Anyway some info on the former Metro Toronto Gov from Wikipedia. Again this will show you why the mergers were more easy here. ---- The following is a list of services that were funded and provided by the Metro government for the City of Toronto and all suburbs under the Metro Gov. -Welfare, homes for the aged, children's services (ie. child care) Metro Toronto Welfare and Social Services -Policing: Metro Toronto Police -Public transit: Toronto Transit Commission -Regional parks including the Toronto Islands, waterfront park and valley parks systems: Metro Toronto Parks and Property -Metro Toronto Planning - Regional planning -Metro Toronto Treasury -Metro Toronto Clerk -Metro Toronto Legal -Arterial roads and expressways: Metro Toronto Roads and Transportation -Ambulance services: Metro Toronto Ambulance -Sewage treatment, water filtration and distribution: Metro Toronto Works -solid waste disposal (but not collection, which was a lower-tier responsibility) -Social services, hostels, public housing, children's services: Metro Toronto Community Services and Metro Toronto Hostel Services Division -The Metropolitan Toronto Library Board, which directly operated the Metro Toronto Reference Library and provided coordination between the municipal public libraries within Metro Toronto -Metro Toronto Zoo (now Toronto Zoo) -Hummingbird Centre (formerly the O'Keefe Centre) for the Performing Arts -Exhibition Place -Metro Toronto and Area Conservation Authority (Message edited by miketoronto on February 21, 2007) | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 6332 Registered: 09-2005 |
Let's merge everyone. Then we'd need just one mayor and one guv. Most city employees could then be fired, as well as county. Put all jobs out to bid, and include illegals in the competition - after all, they're just trying to feed their families. Think of the savings. In particular, it would seem that cities like Dearborn would welcome this with open arms. After all, Dearborn has been losing ground for years and was never the same after their riots. Meanwhile, next-door neighbor Detroit has been growing by leaps and bounds, with beautiful historic neighborhoods maintained and preserved over the last century. Finally, Dearborn has a chance. Fuggedaboudit. | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 3691 Registered: 10-2003 |
Run, don't walk, toward metropolitan union. Due to entrenched political bureaucracies and jealousies, this is politically impossible at the moment, but unification of vital shared services - public safety, infrastructure, roads and school systems is a good place to press forward. Those can offer immediate financial benefits for all players and create a path to success that will encourage further union while letting the duplicative political bureaucracies maintain the their figments of political puffery. Their egos have to be dealt with so they can end up as queens of England types - all title, with real management left to professionals. The other end of this issue is the need for statewide laws to end urban sprawl which is exacerbating the waste. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 5550 Registered: 02-2004 |
I would like to Detroit annex Highland Park, Hamtramck, Harper Woods. All five Grosse Pointes Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Redford TWP. Livonia, Melvindale, River Rouge, Ecorse, Lincoln Park, Allen Park, Westland, Wayne, Inkster and Garden City. Pontiac to merge with Auburn Hills, Bloomfield TWP. West Bloomfield, Waterford TWP. Lake Angelus and Bloomfield Hills Royal Oak to merge with Ferndale Hazel Park, Madison Heights, Royal Oak TWP. Oak Park , Huntington Woods, Berkley and Pleasant Ridge. St. Clair Shores to merge with Eastpointe, Roseville, Warren, Center Line, Clinton TWP, and Fraser. Mt. Clemens to merge with Harrison TWP. Southfield to merge with Lathrup Village, Franklin, Beverly Hills and Bingham Farms Farmington Hills to merge with Farmington. Novi to merge with Walled Lake and Novi TWP. and Wixom. Ann Arbor to merge with Pittsfield TWP. Ann Arbor TWP. and Barton Hills Yspilanti to merge with Ypsilanti TWP. Wyandotte to merge with Trenton , Grosse Ille, Southgate, Brownstown TWP. Woodhaven and Gibraltar. Then Detroit would have a population of over million people again, but it won't be to 80% black anymore. Pontiac would a population in 200,000 people but it won't be 70% black anymore. Royal Oak would a population of 190,000 people. St. Clair would a population of 330,000 people. Mt. Clemens would have population of 60,000 people. Southfield would a have a population of 100,000 people but the black population would be 40% losing its dominance as a one of the majority black suburbs. Farmington Hills would have a population of 90,000 people. Novi would have a population of 85,000 people. Ann Arbor would have a population of 170,000 people. Ypsilanti would have a population of 60,000 people. And Wyandotte would have a population of 100,000 people. Now that would something good for metro-Detroit area. But its NOT going to happen just yet. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 200 Registered: 12-2006 |
Well, something has to be done. Consider the historical Township of Royal Oak, the original 36 square mile Township. In the early part of the 20th Century that 36 square miles split into the Cities of Royal Oak, Berkley, Madison Heights, Ferndale, Oak Park, Pleasant Ridge, Huntington Woods, Hazel Park, part of Clawson (am I forgetting anybody?) and the Township still remains, in two small non-contiguous sections. Each of these cities, some physically very tiny, has its own public safety, DPW, City government, City Hall and so on. That is horribly inefficient, and we must get more efficient if we are to survive. The point is to get efficient delivery of services so that public tax dollars are spent less wastefully. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 151 Registered: 10-2003 |
"If a little regionalization is good, then why not do it statewide, err... city-wide, and include the entire state into Detroit? And while we're at it, we take Toledo, as well. It'll then be a city-state like Hamburg Germany. Now that that's solved, what do we do with the mayor or governor? Do we keep both or which one to eliminate? And are those people feeding off the public trough now city employees or state employees? Do we keep them all too or add even more? Letting any of them go would smack of anti-socialism, and we wouldn't want that." Just because you are able to exaggerate something beyond realism doesn't mean you've made a point. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 8370 Registered: 10-2003 |
Before looking at merging cities/townships we can at least look at merging services and smaller school districts. The problem is and has been a problem in this region for 50 years. Everyone runs their city/township like a fiefdoms. The mayors, supreintendents, police chiefs, etc will fight this to the death. Consolidation works in the provate sector but the private sector is driven by profits. In our state we will not see the level of cooperation to get mass consolidation of services so we will certainly not see consolidation of cities. Too many short sighted politicians that are running for a job, not the betterment of their city, region, state. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 498 Registered: 07-2004 |
You are right Jt1. People have to remember that the Ontario mergers merged places that already for the most part had regional services like Police, schools, etc under one already. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 201 Registered: 12-2006 |
So maybe that's the first step. The only regional things we have around here that I know of are HCMA (Metro Parks) and SMART. Neither one includes Detroit, and many communities do not participate in SMART (except in Macomb County which was intelligent enough to disallow that). So where do we start? | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 8372 Registered: 10-2003 |
HCMA is a regional tax. I wouldn't really consider it a regional service. | ||
Wazootyman Member Username: Wazootyman Post Number: 188 Registered: 02-2006 |
I'm all for a stronger, improved region, but I ask this: Why would I want to merge my city (Livonia) that boasts excellent city services with Detroit, that often fails on the most basic needs? Ideally, the two would work together to be better, but who really thinks that would happen? Besides contributing the affluency of my city to one that is generally more impoverished, what benefit would I see? Would my access to services remain the same, improve or diminish? If it's not me asking it, you can bet just about everyone else in my city would ask it. Go ahead and make it about race - but you'd be a fool, because it has more to do with the return on the tax dollar. | ||
Patrick Member Username: Patrick Post Number: 4067 Registered: 10-2003 |
My question is what would happen to the many jobs that can now be done by one person? Kinda like GM buying Chrysler and many white collar folks get canned. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2602 Registered: 10-2004 |
quote: Patrick, you already know what the answer to that question. Nothing will happen because public sector will rarely fire their workers short of enduring an economic collapse. If the public sector won't cut its bloated work force in the dire economic times at present, it never will--unless the state and regional economies spin even more out of control. Otherwise, regionalism could just usher in an even larger, more-bloated public sector that will impose a still larger tax burden upon the private sector. | ||
Detourdetroit Member Username: Detourdetroit Post Number: 265 Registered: 10-2003 |
who said "all for one and one for all???" that has a nice ring to it... | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 202 Registered: 12-2006 |
I'm not suggesting that Livonia would merge with Detroit. Detroit, first of all, is big enough already and doesn't need to merge with anyone. Livonia is also a very large city for this region. There are over 120 municipalities in the tri-county area and that is not an efficient way of providing municipal services. I'm not suggesting the tri-county area should become a single municipality. I'm posing the question: how much merging is possible and sensible? Of course local leaders will fight such a thing tooth and nail. Who gives a shit? We're failing as a region, and failing catastrophically, so we need to make some changes. Danny's post above gives several examples of specific mergers that might make sense. What do you think of the scope of his examples? | ||
Walterwaves Member Username: Walterwaves Post Number: 103 Registered: 01-2007 |
yes, they should all merge and clean this mess up once and for all | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2603 Registered: 10-2004 |
There's little to stop municipalities to share services right now without having those localities losing their local governance. If they don't do so, it's their fault. Detroit, for one, is the least qualified to annex any community because its government has shown little evidence that it can even handle its own affairs. Just why are those tens of thousands leaving the city annually--because they approve of what's occurring? No suburb wants Detroit's interference and their taxing them for the "favors." Get real! | ||
Corktownmark Member Username: Corktownmark Post Number: 262 Registered: 12-2004 |
LY the number of employees in Detroit under the current administration is down. Are you like really depressed or something? You don't seem to ever miss a chance to complain even if you have to make the facts up to suit your purpose. | ||
Walterwaves Member Username: Walterwaves Post Number: 104 Registered: 01-2007 |
a merger of all surrounding areas would overwhelm the Detroit population and you can have whom ever you want as city government at that point. Stop harping , and do something positive. With all surrounding areas included people will move back, people will bring business and people will bring money and best of all, you wont have anymore Al Capones or Frank Nitty's at the drivers wheel of the mayors office. You can elect whomever you choose because the majority will then be those who have been outsiders looking in. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2604 Registered: 10-2004 |
I know that Detroit's numbers are down from before. But they're still too high compared to comparable cities. Same with DPS. And why did Detroit wait for so long to fire some of them? Another large problem for Detroit is having to come up with the funds to pay for Cadillac-level pensions. The legacy costs that plagued the Detroit Three are also present in Detroit. And don't go on thinking that I'm a lone, solitary critic on that score. Go ask those 20,000+ refugees who flee its borders annually, why dontcha? | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 203 Registered: 12-2006 |
Again, I do not suggest that Detroit needs to be one of the communities that merges. We can discuss this issue in general without endlessly rehashing the arguments on that specific point. Sharing services is a good step but not sufficient. City government itself costs money, and in some cases considerable amounts. A City Manager typically makes six figures and many other City executive-level positions are also very well paid. | ||
Corktownmark Member Username: Corktownmark Post Number: 263 Registered: 12-2004 |
I appreciate that you are not in denial about making up facts. Your questions however are good ones. Maybe the next time you attend a community meeting or go to a CC meeting you can persue why the city intends to meet it's pension and health care obligations for retired employees. | ||
Japes Member Username: Japes Post Number: 1 Registered: 02-2007 |
While it looks like a good idea in theory to make it happen is very difficult. Each city and such is set up differently from the way taxes and mills are levied (everything on your main tax bill, some items on your water bill, etc) How generous retirement plans are, some cities don’t have a problem giving $80,000+/year retirements to people(heck $120,000 are handed out in some) Some Fire/Police departments the retires make more retired than they do when they were working! Some have Defined benefit planes, some have defined contribution plans, some cover full medial, some freeze medial at the point of retirement and only pay that amount form when that person retires, and the retire makes up the rest and some don’t provide any. Fire Departments are different, (full time, paid on call, EMT, Paramedic) Also some cities/townships are really financially strapped at the moment with the state cutting revenue sharing (it’s the way for lansing to raise taxes without having to vote to do it – throw it on the local cities/townships and they have to do it) While some have planned well and are in decent shape. Also why do we have 3 different Police Department, Local, County and State? Why not just have one? We have chartered townships in Michigan witch are very difficult to annex. The purpose when townships were set up was that they would get big enough /developed and then the city would annex that portion of the township, It’s the reason that cities like Westland, Woodhaven, and Novi came to be, the neighboring cities, Livonia, Trenton, and Farmington were looking at the developments in these cities and realized that they could capture that tax value and it would add to their bottom line. Through lobbing the state legislature in the 70’s changed that law so that they could become chartered and that changes the annexation laws, So new townships like Canton, Brownstown and others don’t have to worry about being annexed. Some cities do share some services, Dispatch, Animal Shelters, parks programs and they do sometimes work with the schools in offering programs at school locations. Some downriver communities are looking at combining fire service, but they are sure to face opposition, in Allen Park and Melvindale when they combined and shared services one of the firemen looked at the council and said if any of you have a heart attach don’t bother to call we won’t show up. Well one of the people on council did have a heart attach that night and is wife drove him to the hospital. As you have said combining is a very difficult – the state has a few times said that school districts had to combine, even then that was difficult. Before that you might go to a k-8 school then go to a different high school in a district that offered 9-12 education, School have joined. Wayne-Westland, Plymouth-Canton and it hasn’t always lead to better education for the kids. The state need to change the way school are funded to level the field but that is a whole other topic. | ||
Angry_dad Member Username: Angry_dad Post Number: 138 Registered: 02-2006 |
Since the citizens of Detroit don't demand districted city counsel members, which may be one of the major reasons some areas have gone through decline, how exactly would larger municipalities work? | ||
Sticks Member Username: Sticks Post Number: 216 Registered: 08-2005 |
Hell, the city limits of Allen Park already three school districts: Southgate-AP, Mel-NAP, and then just plain old AP. You'd think with school of choice happening that schools would be one of the easiest to combine but who knows. Hey Danny, you forgot Taylor! | ||
Fareastsider Member Username: Fareastsider Post Number: 117 Registered: 08-2006 |
City of Oakland, City of Macomb, City of Wayne, City of Detroit. 4 mega cities! Why not Phoenix is already over 500sq mile!!! oh does anyone remember a few years ago when the Pointes and Harper Woods were dabbling in the thought of annexing to Macomb because they felt that they were segregated from the county geographically and that to much of their taxes went to Detroit and county projects they were segregated from....whatever happened to that? Macomb did gain land once in the late seventies when they took the part of New Baltimore East of COunty line I guess it could happen again.....It seems logical for the pointes to do it to me | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1002 Registered: 04-2006 |
Personally I would be open to get rid of all local governments and just have county governments. It would cut down on beauracracy and redundancy. Look at the fights now about Wayne County Sherrifs on DDOT buses. Savings could be used for improving the infrastructure. It would make folks in places like Northville and Livonia more responding towards the ills found in Detroit. | ||
Bibs Member Username: Bibs Post Number: 668 Registered: 10-2003 |
I agree with Japes. Michigan is a home rule state so annexation is difficult. Recently, Oak Park annexed an apartment tower. It was put on the ballot and the voters of Oak Park approved it. I think an annexation has to be put on the ballot. Perhaps, Japes will chime in. In other states,I have been told that all the homer owner has to do to be get his parcel annexed by the city is show up at a city council meeting and asked to be annexed. Pontiac recently annexed a portion of West Bloomfield along Telegraph. It was a ploy by the developer who was planning on building a large mutli-use project. It also has to be put on the ballot. What a cat fight that was between the two cities. | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 6338 Registered: 09-2005 |
The per-capita murder (and other crime) rate would decline, all of Detroit's negatives would decrease (at least on paper) The Chamber of Commerce should love this. Deartroit sounds nice. Or Devonia? | ||
Milwaukee Member Username: Milwaukee Post Number: 836 Registered: 08-2006 |
I don't think I would consider myself an advocate of annexation or merging. Milwaukee doubled its land area in the 60's and although it slowed population decline, it didn't stop it. Maybe it works today though. Indianapolis and Columbus seem to be doing well with it. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2610 Registered: 10-2004 |
quote: Come on, Milwaukee! You'd love having Shorewood, Brown Deer, and your Whitefish Bay annexed to Milwaukee. What's a few more suburbs? The area added would be small and wouldn't contribute to sprawl at all. That way you can live and go to school in the same city--Milwaukee--instead of slumming part of the day five days per week. Nothing personal, but now you might get a feel about how eagerly Dearborn or the GPs would embrace annexation of their burbs to Detroit. | ||
Milwaukee Member Username: Milwaukee Post Number: 837 Registered: 08-2006 |
That's my point. With a stigmatized city like Detroit, the name would drive people out of nice suburbs like the GP's. Nobody wants to share schools or police with a city like Detroit. Hell, Detroit doesn't even seem able to police or educate the population it has now. Milwaukee annexation, I would be less against it as long the school systems were kept seperate. Detroit annexing the GP's would just lead to an exodus of suburbanites and they would probably quickly devolve into subdivided mansions. I don't want that to happen. Contain the problem and try and fix it. The metro counties should work together as a region, they should not merge though. | ||
Milwaukee Member Username: Milwaukee Post Number: 838 Registered: 08-2006 |
I should make it clear, I am not an advocate for merging municipalities. | ||
Thecarl Member Username: Thecarl Post Number: 1019 Registered: 04-2005 |
japes, thank you for the comprehensive answer - and, welcome to the forum! considering that detroit gets a higher revenue-sharing allocation than any municipality in the state - any community merging with detroit would seemingly be entitled to the higher-scale revenue sharing detroit gets - thereby diluting detroit's priority tax distribution. and sadly, while detroiters returned kwame to a second term, and assembled a new city council - many folks have left the city for exactly that reason - and would be loathe to come under the leadership of the city of detroit. | ||
Angry_dad Member Username: Angry_dad Post Number: 139 Registered: 02-2006 |
Gotta say it, I wonder how Kwame could find a way to get himself "elected" if a large percentage of voters were north of 8 Mile? But wouldn't Brooks be the best possible opponent? As if the last crop of elections weren't smear contests. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 8374 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: And the larger area would have to deal with the number of homeless, impoverished, pensions, health care costs, etc that Detroit currently has to eat all on its own. If you are going to how the merged cities would be screwed I would hope that you would consider the unfair burden that Detroit currently carried. I guess out of sight out of mind is easier where you live. It is so much easier to put the pbulk of regional problems on a city then laugh when it can't deal with them all. | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 291 Registered: 11-2005 |
But if the city can merge with lets say Hamtramick, Highland Park, Redford Township, and the Dearborns that would be cool not only for the increase in population but the increase in land area. Uh, the city has a hard enough time dealing with the land it has. Sure, the population boost would help with taxes, but it's all gonna balance out if you're adding more land. Things like Detroit's snow removal would become an even bigger nightmare. And the LAST thing Detroit needs is Highland Park. That's like annexing Baghdad. I'd take Hamtramck, though. Mmmm, Polish Village.  | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 204 Registered: 12-2006 |
Wow! I can't get people off the concept that Detroit itself would be merging with things. Folks: the idea here is that small communities would merge in order to save the expense of having over 120 units of local government in a three county area. Detroit would not necessarily have to be involved at all. I am not in favor of Detroit merging with Dearborn, for instance. Both of those cities are large enough to justify their completely independent existence. You can talk all day about how inefficiently Detroit is run, but that wasn't the point of my initial post. Cities like the four Pointes, the nine or ten communities carved out of the historical Township of Royal Oak, the plethora of cities to the immediate southwest of Detroit: those are what I'm talking about. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 499 Registered: 07-2004 |
Who says people would flee just because their suburb was merged with Detroit? You guys should look at Joburg, South Africa, which has way bigger social issues then Detroit, but also has similar problems. The gov merged the entire Joburg metro area into one city. And it has worked well. Money from the rich suburb has been used to fix up the poor areas, and the entire city is better then before. Business and white people are moving back into the inner city, and everything is more equal. So take a look at it. It can work. | ||
Prokopowicz Member Username: Prokopowicz Post Number: 11 Registered: 02-2005 |
Regarding Professorscott's idea (smaller suburbs should merge), I have two comments: 1) Practically speaking, cities like the Pointes already share schools. And the taxes are low (way low, compared to where I live in Oak Park, IL). The services (at least in the Shores where I am from) are amazing. I don't think the system there needs fixing. 2) Theoretically speaking, choice, and with it, competition, are crucial for progress in any sphere. Reducing the choice of suburbs, and competition between them, will slow down their progress. At some point, this effect will be greater than the economies of scale from merging, so that merging will reduce progress. So, it's not enough to say that cities can achieve some efficiency by merging. The question is, will the entire region benefit by these efficiencies at the cost of less choice and competition? | ||
Japes Member Username: Japes Post Number: 2 Registered: 02-2007 |
You always don't have to have an election but in some cases they are required. Sometimes the election will only be for people involved in the annexation area sometimes both cities at large. Now the big problems come up in regards to DDA, TIFA, Brownfield, or other tax capture districts. The existing DDA will continue to receive the tax capture for that area, so as an example if say Westland wanted to annex the Ford Rd corridor of Canton, the Canton DDA would still continue to capture the funds that it was normally capturing in that district as well as the future increase in the development of that area, Westland would receive the base of that that Canton was receiving when the DDA (or special tax district)was formed -- so now you have a board in which Canton officials appoint someone overseeing the spending of funds in a district that isn't in the same community, but shares a common district I know it is confusing. Now in theory when the special district was done (they have time limits) it would revert to the community that annexed it. Some feel that if the existing special district was continued, that the captured dollars would continue to fund that special district and wouldn’t be released to the community which annexed that area. http://www.michigan.gov/docume nts/cis_opla_anexproc_37437_7. pdf will give you info on home rule laws and annexation rules. | ||
Scs100 Member Username: Scs100 Post Number: 482 Registered: 12-2006 |
In my opinion, it would take a miracle for the GPs to merge with Detroit. All 5 together, maybe. The one that needs to be merged is Highland Park into Detroit. | ||
Planner_727 Member Username: Planner_727 Post Number: 87 Registered: 07-2006 |
A few things need to happen before some sort of magical merge can fix all of our ills. The City of Detroit already can't take care of itself; adding land area is not a good idea unless the whole structure of government is completely overhauled. We can't even get council members elected by precincts... how can we expect any sort of neighborhood management across more square miles?! An earlier comment pointed out that Redford and Redford Township should merge. Redford is a neighborhood within the City of Detroit, and Reford Township is a whole different place altogether. Besides physical barriers of the Rouge branch, telegraph, and the woodlawn cemetery, a merge of those two would be like combining Highland Park and Hamtramack--more just for the sake of merging than anything else. It is unfortunate that the State of Michigan is set up to have so many layers of independent, home-rule municipalities, and such weak, meaningless County and Regional structures. To get back to the topic at hand, simply merging to reduce numbers is not the answer. There needs to be a benefit (or at least a potential benefit) for both parties involved... whether it's more efficient services or whatever. The incredible number of individual school districts, public service providers and agreements and road maintenance, etc ALL need to be overhauled. If anything, all of the other services, schools, transportation, roads, utilities, and regional cooperation must be ironed out FIRST to make merging at all beneficial. To support this conclusion, the few mergers that garner any kind of real discussion already have many of these 'anomalies' in place: Farmington-Farm Hills shares some services and schools and actually work together on things. Many other neighbors are confrontational at best. | ||
Planner_727 Member Username: Planner_727 Post Number: 88 Registered: 07-2006 |
In addition, Canton is a Charter Township and is therefore more difficult to annex. Kind of a tough sell for a City like Westland or Wayne of 10,000 or less to try and annex the main commercial strip of a Township of over 80,000. As discussed above, in order for consolidation to be beneficial for the region, it must include all areas. A larger consolidated low- and middle- class city will still loose out competition for new jobs and development to a upper-class city like Auburn Hills, etc. The regional cooperation and dedication must be in place on a scale great enough to allow the region to compete as one with other regions to bring more benefit (with less concessions) than any one of the Cities/TOwnships could do on thier own. While there is the potential to slow progress when you reduce competition, it is important to rememeber that the local competition between neighbors really only ends up benefitting the company coming in and is a lose-lose for both locals. Selling your City/REgion on its qualities instead of offering more tax breaks and free infrastructure than your neighbor is not a healthy way to improve regional economies. | ||
Erikd Member Username: Erikd Post Number: 809 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: The attitude expressed in the above postings are a big part of the problem in this region. The mere suggestion of merging, consolidating, or regionalizing any part of local government in SE Michigan evokes a visceral outpouring of anti-Detroit rhetoric, and wild suppositions about the horrors that would result from any attempt at regional cooperation. Contrary to the opinion of many people, consolidating local municipalities or creating a regional government does not equal a Detroit takeover. Consolidation or regionalization doesn't mean that the city of Detroit would seize control of the surrounding suburbs, and subjugate them to the authority of the existing Detroit city government. Consolidation is not about one local government taking power away from others, it is about creating a new system of local government that works to benefit the entire region, instead of just one small part of it. | ||
Cmubryan Member Username: Cmubryan Post Number: 379 Registered: 11-2003 |
Best idea, I've heard in a while! Such a waste of dollars with all these tiny communities. If we could merge the greater portions of Oakland, Macomb and Wayne together we could have a population of almost 4 million! Also, I remember at one point there was someone who had the idea to merge most of the cities surrounding Woodward in Oakland County (Ferndale, Hazel Park, Royal Oak, Berkley, Huntington Woods, Pleasant Ridge,Birmingham, and Bloomfield Hills) to one powerhouse city. Probably leading to the second biggest city in Michigan. | ||
Wash_man Member Username: Wash_man Post Number: 342 Registered: 05-2006 |
I think a good example of the benefits of this merging theory would be Centerline and Warren. Centerline is a small "donut hole" in the middle of Warren. They have their own government, police, schools, etc. All this while Warren Police cars and school buses criss-cross Centerline daily. Make Centerline part of Warren and eliminate the duplication. Everyone would save (except the Centerline employees). Any profitable business would manage itself like this. Only governments get away with such inefficiencies. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 617 Registered: 12-2005 |
No, make Warren part of Center Line - after all, they incorporated as a city 21 years before Warren did! <grin> The only way a full consolidation between two or more cities could be sold to the voters is if a new identity is established for the resulting municipality. The model employed in Germany allows the original towns to keep their identity while also adding the name of the "Stadt" under which they have been consolidated (followed by the county name in this example):  |
