Discuss Detroit Archives - Beginning January 2007 104,000 people left Detroit. Previous Next
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 5802
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 8:53 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Official factual data reports from SEMCOG have reported that over 100,000 people have left Detroit for good to other areas. This is due to rising crime rates, empty promises from city services, rising unemployment and a poor Detroit Public School district. However few empty nesters are making their settlements at Downtown and Midtown area. The population decline have reached to near Macomb County's population by almost 100 people. By 2009 Macomb County's population would outbeat Detroit's population. This is sad decade for our biggest city in Michigan. It seems to me that our Wolverine state is have plenty of resources, but not enough job growth.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5374
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 9:53 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's sad, but the Macomb County population comparison is really getting kind of old. There are many older cities who's central city population accounts for much less a percentage of the Metro area than Detroit. Furthermore, Macomb County is 480 square miles of land, Detroit is 140 square miles of land. Beyond it being slightly symbolic, the comparison serves little to no other purpose.

BTW, I wrote SEMCOG about why they showed a huge (nearly 20,000 drop) between their March and April estimate, and they've revised it because of the recent Census estimates for county saying that they believe Detroit took more off the loss of the county than they'd originally thought. On the other hand, they are still at odds with the Census showing both Dearborn and Hamtramck with significant population increases, so, I'm really not sure why they'd revise Detroit's number so greatly, while none of the other numbers were revised to quite the extent. It seems as if they are using a different measurement (a tougher model) for Detroit than other municipalities for whatever reason. I'll leave that for others to decide and question. Perhaps, someone can get a better answer out of the SEMCOG estimators than I did.
Top of pageBottom of page

Granmontrules
Member
Username: Granmontrules

Post Number: 65
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 10:02 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I have only been on the forum for a few months but I have noticed that Danny is always a bright ray of sun shine.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5376
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 10:04 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Are you being sarcastic?
Top of pageBottom of page

Rocket_city
Member
Username: Rocket_city

Post Number: 216
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 10:06 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There will also be losses shown in Dearborn in the future though, due to the losses at Ford.

I DO think that the Macomb County comparison is relavant for one reason. That being that their nearly 500 sq miles of land is not nearly enough for the population moving into it. It illustrates our spatial patterns in Michigan and how they are wasteful and eventually burdon our economic welfare as a state. It may not be talked about in the papers or even understood by anybody, but sprawl is killing Metro Detroit.

The jumbling of resources and human capital knows no boundaries, whether that be the 8 Mile boundary or the Ohio/Indiana state line.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg

Post Number: 783
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 10:26 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

...but sprawl is killing Metro Detroit.



I can think of a number of more significant issues that are "killing" Metro Detroit and "sprawl" is well down on the list, just ahead of our lacking a professional football franchise.

  • high level of local job losses
  • increasing home foreclosures
  • high crime rate
  • poor quality of public education
  • high property taxes
  • poor municipal services
  • non-existant political leadership


Picking apart the latest SEMCOG population numbers is kind of like "reading tea leaves", it may be fun but it doesn't mean a lot. They are just estimates and they are filled with "noise".

The numbers that really mean something are the actual US Census counts which unfortunately only come once every 10 years.
Top of pageBottom of page

Sticks
Member
Username: Sticks

Post Number: 267
Registered: 08-2005
Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 10:32 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I wonder if they're able to estimate the number of voters in the last election and multiply those by a seemingly standard voter-turnout rate.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rocket_city
Member
Username: Rocket_city

Post Number: 220
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 11:19 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mike, I agree with your list, but still am able to validate the argument of sprawl. Detroit started sprawlig since the day it started growing. Over time, the reasons it sprawled have changed and currently those reason have loaded the plate and are mirror images of the contents of your list.

High level of local job losses - maybe not the best example of connectivity to sprawl, but this procedure may be linked to the one-way movement of people out of the city and into the suburbs, taking jobs with them and leaving few in the city. Chrysler, for example skipped almost all of Oakland County when it relocated to A.Hills. All of a sudden there was extreme demand to build housing in that vacinity as employment grew there. Explaining foreclosures in that area is a no brainer. Locating in A.Hills also incentivized the growth of outer fringe townships, given let's say a tolerance level of 25 minutes to the job site south, in A.Hills.

Foreclosures - they are not unique to Detroit anymore. The thinly spaced jobs allowed for thinly spaced lifestyles. When economies weaken, automobile-oriented "communities" are more vulnerable than places with human-scale connectivity. However, the higher densities of structures and people may be more dangerous, both types of abandonment look deplorable.

High crime rate - crime knows no boundaries. Historically, a reason for sprawl was to escape the "dirty inner city". That included crime. The American Dream means everyone is entitled to own personal property, yet there's this thing called racial boundaries that, in my opinion, we have not overcome yet. Spacially, we in this region have minimal comfort zones and once they are breached, we have the ability to move and plenty of land to do so.

Poor quality of public education - This one really gets me. I grew up in a very rural part of the state and had no options but to attend the one and only school system of my community. Here, schools can be built whenever we want in order to establish a student body that is to our liking. Like neighborhoods, schools have a demographic threshold that when a certain class or race percentage is reached, the country's next biggest and best school has to be built for my children, no exceptions. You think Macomb Dakota will be the last gigga school (prison) on the urban fringe, think again.

High property taxes - The state is losing jobs, not just Detroit. The old saying about what happens to Detroit happens to Michigan has always been true and is now more apparent than ever. This isn't to be read literally, but more characteristically. Detroit is a sprawling city defined by the American Dream. So are the suburbs, but in their own unique way. There's no stopping this and with the draining of accessible resources it is becoming EXTREMELY costly to support everyone else's self interests, which apparently is the attraction of rural landscapes just far enough away from the suburbs for development to catch up over a 10 year period...at which time the cycles starts all over again and Danny posts Detroit lost another 100,000 people.

Poor municipal services - Complaints of the Detroit Water Department never have anything to do with local community rate hikes. They have to do with the corruption at the source in Detroit. The further the expanse, the less economical it becomes. Trouble paying for "mainstream" suburban residents is nothing compared to the burden put upon everyone to pay for the neglected half of the system that lies south of 8 Mile. On another note, Livonia is a suburb that has a lot of the area's employment. A lot of those jobs are either had by Detroit residents or are patronized by Detroit residents. Nevermind that cutting the transit service will have any effect on those businesses. This isn't necessarily sprawl, but rather really emphasizes the attitudes and leadership (lack of) that drives spacial patterns here.

Non-existant political leadership - "Today's winners are tomorrows loosers"...when the prosperity of your community is only expected to last 10 years until its time to vacate and populate the next township out, why would anyone want to settle down and take on leadership in that community? I don't think that there is a lack of leadership on local levels, but rather on a regional level.

Metro Detroit is the economic system that drives this state. The poorest of the poor in inner city Detroit are just the same as the richest of the rich building a gated lot on a dirt road in Clarkston. It's a vision of a greater community. Just like the Bay Area is the San Francisco community, the Front Range the Denver community, Puget Sound the Seattle Community, and the Piedmont the Atlanta community. The way we've chosen to build our community on so many different and complex levels, along with the demise of our basic industry has sealed a fate of the donut effect. Unless there is a regional stoppage to this "sprawl", all of the things you listed in your list will continue to blossom.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 5804
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 11:32 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's pitiful the our great State of Michigan is in its great depression while the rest of the nation is enjoying its economic growth. Detroit's unemployment percentage now stands at 14, the highest in the U.S. and I wonder where is out leaders? What are doing to bring jobs back to Michigan besides talking about it? The answer lies in the action of the people rather than sitting in the sidelines waiting for Granholm or the Neo-Cons to call you all to work.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 3047
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 9:54 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The data show that Detroit's group-quartered (institutionalized, jail, etc.) population increased by 11% (added some 2000 to now total 22,000).
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 3048
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 10:26 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

IMO, the New Urbanist crowd wouldn't be bitching about sprawl if it were the city of Detroit expanding into the surrounding suburbs. They only whine because folks are fleeing their city for better places to live and work and spending their tax dollars elsewhere. These NU types are quick to accept tax abatements and other subsidies for their own existence but really don't give a rat's ass about others.

(Message edited by LivernoisYard on April 17, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 1196
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 11:10 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"These NU types are quick to accept tax abatements and other subsidies for their own existence but really don't give a rat's ass about others."

Amen Brother!

I find it ironic that the folks that are in front of the line for these abatements are extolling the urban lifestyle. In addition, in most cases, these folks are being subsidized by those living in poorer crappier neighborhoods.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bpjeff
Member
Username: Bpjeff

Post Number: 44
Registered: 01-2006
Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 11:31 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Although there may be a property tax abatement there surely is not an income tax abatement. The thousands of dollars a year I put in the city coffers would not be there had I not moved from the suburbs.
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 2266
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 11:42 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Keen observation about new urbanists LY.....other then that te only useful info I glean is a new word from Danny..."outbeat"
Top of pageBottom of page

Swingline
Member
Username: Swingline

Post Number: 786
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 12:40 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Livernois and Detplanner, do you have any examples of such evil double standards?
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 1197
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 1:22 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

An income tax argument is bogus as I pay plenty in income tax to Detroit and also the full amount of property tax.

Why not ask the same of folks who have the opposing argument? Those who are lifelong residents of the City and live in the not so special neighborhoods bear more than their fair share of the cost, while those who are newer and live in the more desirable areas pay less. It seems pretty cut and dry in my case. My house has a taxable value of about $60,000 and I pay $2,000 a year. There was an article last year discussed here where there was some guy paying less than $1,000 a year for a loft worth about a half million.

I can't afford a half million dollar loft, yet I pay twice in taxes. I also pay 2.5 percent on all income and interest I make. How is this fair?

Under these conditions, with most of the city population living in areas that don't get a property tax abatement, should there be any surprise that people feel things are unfair and are leaving in droves?

(Message edited by Detroitplanner on April 17, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2364
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 1:34 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

IMO, the New Urbanist crowd wouldn't be bitching about sprawl if it were the city of Detroit expanding into the surrounding suburbs. They only whine because folks are fleeing their city for better places to live and work and spending their tax dollars elsewhere. These NU types are quick to accept tax abatements and other subsidies for their own existence but really don't give a rat's ass about others.



Do you have evidence of this? Offhand, I can't think of any true urbanist who finds "growing" cities like Columbus, Phoenix, Jacksonville, Houston, and Indianapolis terribly exciting--or urban, for that matter.

Do everyone a favor, and stop making up crap.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bpjeff
Member
Username: Bpjeff

Post Number: 46
Registered: 01-2006
Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 1:58 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

DP - I have a good idea, move to a NEZ.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jjaba
Member
Username: Jjaba

Post Number: 5225
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 2:22 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It is jjaba's observation that the cheap Detroit housing prices are not in line with wage expectations and the cost of doing business in Michigan compared to other states.

Companies expanding are not looking to pay UAW wages or their clone wages to work which other hands will do for half the price.

Many other cities and states are training their workers to do quality work, but the workers are willing to work for less wages and benefits.
Call it the Wal-Marting of labor affect if you wish.

Detroit is upside down. Union factory workers, school teachers, and State workers are living in Detroit mansions it seems like these days. Such mansions were left to rot by capitalists who left 50 yrs. ago.

jjaba, tells it like it tis.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 1198
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 3:14 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I have a better idea, maybe I'll move to the burbs where my income taxes will be lower, as will my house and car insurance, and I would pay the same amount in taxes as the guy in the brand new condo down the street?
Top of pageBottom of page

Bpjeff
Member
Username: Bpjeff

Post Number: 47
Registered: 01-2006
Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 6:49 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I considered all of that when I moved from the suburbs. The NEZ designation was the big equalizer that made it easier for me to move back to Detroit.

I agree that taxes are too high in Detroit. Over the next 10-12 years the city should reduce the tax burden of all Detroiters as the NEZ abatements end for those that currently live in those areas.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jiscodazz
Member
Username: Jiscodazz

Post Number: 20
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 9:17 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Nobody lives in Detroit because of great schools, low taxes and low crime. I live here because of the nightlife, proximity to everything I do and because of my wife's job we have to. I'm the first to "hate on" Macomb County, but I don't blame people for living in "cooler" burbs like Ferndale, Royal Oak and Ann Arbor(not really a suburb, but....). They have a lot of tbe benefits of city living, without the tons of problems. Until Detroit can solve those problems, it's going to be tough stopping the population decline.
Top of pageBottom of page

The_rock
Member
Username: The_rock

Post Number: 1713
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 9:51 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I understand that taxes are high in Detroit. The latest tax amnesty proposed by the Mayor, at least as stated in the newspapers, shows that the City only collects 77% of the tax revenue to which it is entitled, meaning that 23% of Detroit taxpayers don't pay what they owe.
Are there any statistic-mavens out there that can tell me that assuming the percentages are correct, how do those percentages compare with other cities of comparable size and/or the "collection rate" in Detroit suburbs?
Top of pageBottom of page

Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge

Post Number: 430
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 10:57 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What I want to know is who is leaving Detroit, and who is moving into Detroit. And could this in some way be a positive change.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 5816
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 11:08 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So far the people who are leaving Detroit are mostly Blacks and older white Detroit families.

The People who are moving back to Detroit is mostly Hip cool skinny jean white college empty nesters, Arabs mostly mostly Muslims and fewer East Indians and Hispanics.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 3057
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 11:20 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

The People who are moving back to Detroit is mostly Hip cool skinny jean white college empty nesters, Arabs mostly mostly Muslims and fewer East Indians and Hispanics.


Moving back or into? There's a difference.

BTW, giving tax abatements to retired folk means that those w/o abatements are footing the lifestyle tax-wise for those paying relatively low income taxes.
Top of pageBottom of page

Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge

Post Number: 431
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 11:26 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"BTW, giving tax abatements to retired folk means that those w/o abatements are footing the lifestyle tax-wise for those paying relatively low income taxes."

Can you be more specific with what you're saying here? I don't quite get it, who's getting tax abatements and who's footing the bill.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5381
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 6:38 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

He's saying one of the common criticisms for tax abatements. In essence, the poor populace are shouldering a significant part of the tax burden of the new residents for a number of years (12 usually). Many would argue that the other taxes they still pay, and the fact they are pumping money into the local economy more than pays for the temporary inconvenience of the citizens temporarily shouldering part of the tax base. Some of these would also argue that these tax abatements are the only tool, at the moment, that these depressed cities can use to compete with their low-tax/tax haven suburbs.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 1203
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 6:57 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thank you L, I really have a hard idea why folks don't understand that there are people in this city that literally don't have a pot to piss in, yet they are paying more in a percentage of their earnings towards property taxes than some relatively affluent person.

For those who dwell on the shrinking population no one is looking at the fact that it is getting too expensive in the City for the working poor to live their when they compare it to what it costs to live in Warren, Ferndale, Dearborn Heights, or Taylor. What would possibly keep the working poor (a huge chunk of the City's population) from not wanting to leave when they can't find a job in the City, would have to pay another 2.5 percent income tax to the City, high property taxes, high insurance, when they can leave and cut those costs to nothing and find a better paying low-wage job.

Its not an equitable system of taxation. It was made even less equitable with the cutting of 3 mills and the adding of the $300 garbage fee. For those in bigger houses in affluent neighborhoods, that resulted in a decrease in taxes while nearly everyone else was left holding the (garbage) bag and saw their property taxes increase substantially.

(Message edited by Detroitplanner on April 18, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5383
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 7:44 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroitplanner, I was just giving both sides of the argument, as Lodge didn't seem the understand one side. I'm hardly against abatements, though, I do realize and respect many of the arguments against them, and there are times when abatements just aren't the correct tool for a particular situation. More often than not, abatements are a necessary evil, and the only way for cities to compete with their suburbs.

(Message edited by lmichigan on April 18, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 1205
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 10:36 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

L, I'm not against them either, however there is a link between the City's population loss and its affordibility for lower income people. (the subject of this thread) Just because Detroit is adding housing in the core does not mean that it is not losing people.

Its almost that there is a secret goal out there to get lots of housing that will generate $3,000 + in income taxes, $1,200 in property taxes, and not be a burden on the school system (DINKs, empty nesters) and ignore the needs of everyone else.

While this is good for the core of the City, it is turning all the neighborhoods into Brightmoors. It is my fear that this will set-up a huge problem in the future where the City will be for the most part rotted-out once you leave the core and unsustainable.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 5386
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 11:05 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

No, the hope that the city attracts these wealthier residents to stay, long-term, to offset any loss of taxes of those moving out. It takes a least 12 years to see if this experiment, and that's all that it really is, will work.

But, I also believe that tax abatements for the well-off and wealthy MUST complimented with lower taxes for ALL citizens. But, if you're to do both you have to be willing to cut or privatize services, as theses taxes MUST be made up elsewhere.

Many older central cities really have very tough choices to make, and really bad options.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 1208
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 11:14 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

here is an article I came across recently about tax abatements and Philly. They are going through a lot of the same things we are.

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/ 07070/768560-28.stm
Top of pageBottom of page

Digitaldom
Member
Username: Digitaldom

Post Number: 618
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 11:39 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lets put this into perspective.. Lower taxes, lower crime, lower housing costs in Macomb.. What is to question here? When you get a huge home in Macomb for around 180k and low taxes.. it's a no brainer that people are locating here.. simple as that...

The overall Metro Detroit is WAY over priced..
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 5826
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 8:10 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That's is why Sterling Heights, Clinton TWP. and Macomb TWP. experience higher population growth because of those lower taxes and lower violent crime.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gcalan
Member
Username: Gcalan

Post Number: 6
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 4:06 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

jiscodazz,
choosing to live in detroit cause of the nightlife seems pretty superficial to me. most taxpayers choose to live in a safe environment, served by a good school system, with good municipal services, that is affordable.

to "hate" on macomb county but think ferndale and royal oak are "cool" and acceptable cause they have a lot of bars seems very immature.

i lived in detroit for over 30 years. now that i'm a father and decent wage earner, my bar hopping days are over. i no longer think living in a pit near a lot of bars is "cool".

btw, i bring my kids to detroit (and many other suburbs) to experience the great cultural things our area has to offer on a regular basis, but i refuse to raise them in the sinking city that is detroit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bpjeff
Member
Username: Bpjeff

Post Number: 54
Registered: 01-2006
Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 5:46 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gcalan,

To each their own. Just because people like to live near nightlife and their workplace is not superficial nor immature. Many of us prefer to live in the "pit" because of the "great cultural things" Detroit has to offer.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lukabottle
Member
Username: Lukabottle

Post Number: 35
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Friday, April 20, 2007 - 12:45 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Different strokes for different folks.
I grew up in Macomb County and think it is a pit (At least Clinton Township). I prefer the City. However I do realize Cass Park is unique with its vicinity to downtown and WSU and that I am probably not living in a typical neighborhood.
I also don't have kids.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rocket_city
Member
Username: Rocket_city

Post Number: 232
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Friday, April 20, 2007 - 12:59 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Detroit has good schools too.

The school argument, though extremely valid, is overrated in my opinion.

Someday, Macomb Dakota will be thought of as an inner ring dump.

I say that facetiously, just to make my point.

I don't have kids but would also want quality education for them. But I think quality education might mean something totally different to me than the most modern types of desired school environments today.

For starters, an easily accessible school. One in which kids can walk to. Bring back the neighborhood school and bring back the neighborly society we once had. City or suburb.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.