OT: City of Detroit Epic Comeback? (Business Insider)

Submitted by Ron_Lippitt on
Business Insider give us its list of why they believe Detroit is on the verge of an "epic comeback."

http://www.businessinsider.com/things-going-right-for-detroit-2013-6?op…

Those of us who have been holding our breath, waiting for a Motown return to greatness, will likely be waiting a few decades longer. But reading through this list, it's hard not to get at least a smidge optimistic about the city's future.

We'll never be Chicago. But maybe we could be Indy. Or Pittsburgh.

snarling wolverine

June 14th, 2013 at 4:57 PM ^

I don't want to sound like a jerk, but that idea sounds crazy  . . . why would a city want to pay a ton of money to receive a bunch of high-crime, impoverished neighborhoods?  Not to mention that a lot of the inner suburbs are already battling the perception that they're becoming ghettoized as it is (they are where Detroiters typically move to).

 

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

June 14th, 2013 at 5:05 PM ^

I'd be genuinely interested to hear them.  I can only think of two scenarios: the city sells good sections, or the city sells bad sections.  I think the inherent problems in both would be obvious.  No suburb would pay Detroit for a blighted disaster zone, and there aren't very many of those on the edges of the city anyway.  (If it was truly empty land, you could make a case, but most areas aren't truly empty.)  And Detroit would be utterly foolish to sell off its good tax-generating land for a one-time fix and keep the blight.

Besides that, you have the problem that most of the land isn't owned by the city anyway.  Dearborn or Warren or what have you would have to buy from thousands of individual landowners.  Simple transfer of city jurisdiction is another matter that would have to be taken up in the state legislature, most likely.

Jon06

June 14th, 2013 at 5:23 PM ^

Besides that, you have the problem that most of the land isn't owned by the city anyway. Dearborn or Warren or what have you would have to buy from thousands of individual landowners.

A symphony of missing the point!

Simple transfer of city jurisdiction is another matter that would have to be taken up in the state legislature, most likely.

Why?

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

June 15th, 2013 at 11:27 PM ^

Because the state and the boundary commission do not have procedures for annexing one city's land to another, that's why.

Besides, certain city residents are awfully prickly about things like transferring the administration of city assets to a regional board.  Cobo Hall was like pulling teeth.  Belle Isle and the water department even more so.  Can you imagine the tangle of court proceedings they'll put together if they ever get wind of the city actually giving up actual land?

I don't know what the heck you mean by "missing the point."

steeltownblue

June 14th, 2013 at 6:28 PM ^

just homestead the $%^@ out of the place?  Make the abandoned properties available for $1, set up some kind of expedited permitting process, and give gigantic property and/or income tax breaks to people who build, reside and stay for, say, five years?  Make it attractive to entrepreneurs and risk-takers.

Clarence Beeks

June 14th, 2013 at 8:13 PM ^

"We'll never be Chicago. But maybe we could be Indy. Or Pittsburgh."

Honestly, the city that Detroit should hope to become actually IS Pittsburgh. What has happened there is economically (and really not over a particularly long period of time) is nothing short of amazing.

MichiganManOf1961

June 15th, 2013 at 12:27 AM ^

Pittsburgh was NEVER was fucked up as Detroit is now.  Detroit's history from the riots onwards is completely different than Pittsburgh's history.  Moreover, the city of Pittsburgh itself is TINY geographically... lots of corporate $ but not many poor inner city folk to care for.  The opposite is true for Detroit.

Clarence Beeks

June 15th, 2013 at 7:31 AM ^

That said, the primary point that I was getting at was with regard to the cratering of the primary economic generating industry in the city/region. In that respect, what happened in Pittsburgh was worse. At its height of production, there was more steel made in the city limits of Pittsburgh than in the rest of the world combined. Today there isn't one steel mill in the city of Pittsburgh. The auto industry is obvious in bad shape in Detroit, but it obviously still exists (as well as much of the associated businesses). I honestly believe that a large part of what is wrong with Detroit today is about attitude (ie we have it so bad, and so much worse than anyone else, and there is nothing we can do about it).

MichiganManOf1961

June 15th, 2013 at 10:39 AM ^

Look at the murder rate in Detroit.  Look at the graduation rate of the city's schools.  Look at the political atmosphere of corruption and nepotism.  Look at the amount of abandoned properties in the city.  Look at the obscene unemployment rates in the city.  Look at the mockery made of Detroit on a national and international level.  

As for the auto industry, if you think that's sticking around... ha.  How many plants have been built in Detroit in recent years vs. non-union dominated states like South Carolina or Alabama?  At least Pittsburgh dropped steel altogether and focused on new industries.  The only "new" industry I've seen in the news about Detroit is hipsters opening coffee shops, bars and urban farms.  

Pittsburgh may have had economic issues, but it never had the social collapse Detroit has had.  I know some of you hold Detroit dear to your hearts, but look at ANY other city in the United States.  You can't even compare how, honestly, shitty Detroit is compared to any other major city in the US.  How the *&%^ are you going to convince someone to move to Detroit instead of Chicago, Pittsburgh, or Columbus right now?  It'd take a 25-40% raise for me to even consider it.  The population is only going to get older and smaller as people continue to flee not only the city, but the state.  

Clarence Beeks

June 15th, 2013 at 1:54 PM ^

"At least Pittsburgh dropped steel altogether and focused on new industries."

That is, more or less, my point. It seems like the vast majority of people in Detroit (at least the decision makers) are hell bent on the idea that the auto industry will return and all will be ok. It's ok that the city's identity is the auto industry, but you can still retain that identity and move on. Hell, Pittsburgh is still synonymous with steel, even though they make very little in the entire area anymore and absolutely none within the city limits.

All of that said, you still missed my point. Yes, Detroit is larger both geographically and in terms of population. Yes, it is significantly worse of economically than Pittsburgh. The key with that last sentence is that it is worse of economically than Pittsburgh NOW. It wasn't 25 years ago when both cities had their primary (or more accurately exclusive) industry crater. The difference is that Pittsburgh let it go and moved on, made a major effort to attract new industry, and is now booming, whereas Detroit is still holding on and waiting for the comeback.

justingoblue

June 15th, 2013 at 10:43 AM ^

I'm guessing Detroit wouldn't mind quadrupling their population (going from 18 to 3 in the US), doubling their tourism numbers, gaining anything like the downtown area including the tallest building in the country (is there a better downtown in America?) which has two top ten universities bookending it and quadrupling their Fortune 500 HQ's.

Also all of this hypothetically would be happening while drastically reducing crime and adding an unbelievable amount of wealth. It's obvious that any US city with maybe 2-3 exceptions would kill to be Chicago.

Professor Prepuces

June 14th, 2013 at 10:46 PM ^

It is possible that Detroit's long slide into oblivion has reached its terminus, and that the long road to prosperity is ahead.  However, there are a multitude of factors diminishing this view.  Let us proceed into the void.

First and foremost is that Detroit is in the state of Michigan.  Michigan is a state of few prospects.  It is the only state to lose population in the last decennial.  It is fairly remote geographically with few resources left that are valuable.  What made Detroit a 20th century powerhouse - the iron ore, timber, and proximity to coal and navagable waterways - have either disappeared or become irrelevant.  Many of Michigan's small cities such as Flint, Pontiac, and Lansing suffer a similar dysfunction as Detroit.

Detroit is a city that has roughly the same geographic size and population as Portland Oregon.  But the two cities could not be further apart in terms of their economic health.  Why is that?  One need only look at the cost of downsizing.  For all the talk and speculation about Detroit downsizing its infrastructure (exactly how much money will the city save by this?  They already don't mow, don't plow, and don't patch large swaths of the city.) few are talking about downsizing its pension obligations.  Like many industrial cities Detroit has legacy costs of its retirees that are dragging down the city's finances.  Similar to other Rust Belt cities like Chicago, Milwaukee, and Cleveland, Detroit granted generous retirement benefits to employees that it can no longer afford to pay.  The result is similar:  higher taxes and lower government services than other cities or even their own suburbs.  This pay more and get less scenario is crippling the city and driving the exodus of citizens and any reasonable plan for Detroit needs to address this issue.

Also, when people talk about downsizing Detroit keep in mind that the city's borders haven't changed since the mid 1920s.

I have lived in many different places and visited many more, but I have never experienced a region with as dysfunctional a city/suburb dynamic as metropolitan Detroit.  There is, at times, an almost visceral hatred from the city of its suburbs and likewise the suburbs of its city.  Often when I meet someone from the Detroit suburbs they try and divorce themselves from the city entirely.  "Oh I'm not from Detroit, I'm from the X suburb" is a common refrain.  I'm sure student at Michigan from other states found this experience a bit strange, they always looked askew when I observed it. 

The differences are apparent when you look at the demographics:  one of the most economically and racially segregated metro region in America.  This dysfunction spills out into almost every facet of life in Detroit.  The airport is not in Detroit but Romulus and people are sure to refrain from calling it Detroit airport but rather metro airport...as if someone would mistake it for the city's diminutive airport.  The Palace - home of the Detroit Pistons - is sure to remind you that it is of Auburn Hills.  And so it is colloquially known as the Palace of AUBURN HILLS lest you forget.  Even here people are quick to point out what Fortune 500 businesses are and are not in the city limits.  Let me say this again:  I have never experienced a more dysfunctional city/suburb than Detroit.  And it cuts both ways.  The city hates the suburbs and the suburbs hate the city in ways I have not seen anywhere else.

And let us not be so myopic:  the built places of the region are a total failure.  Detroit is, by many metrics, the sprawliest region in America.  The most autocentric, car dependent urban and suburban environment anywhere.  The young demographic, the under 30 cohort, drives and owns cars much less than any demographic in three generations.  The current roster of young people under 20 drive and have licenses less than any cohort in more than 50 years.  How many of the young people in metropolitan Detroit are going to stick around a region that spent the last 80 years or so build communities completely dependent on the car?  Even if self driving cars become a reality tomorrow, the mass adoption of that technology won't happen until this current crop of young people have already matriculated and fled the region.  And despite new fuel efficient cars like the Prius and the Volt, high gas prices have been the reality for the under 30 cohort as long as they have been licensed.  Your economics professors failed you when they told you that people are rational actors.  They are not.  What they meant to say was that people respond to incentives.  And they do.

For all the talk of a resurgent US Automotive industry the reality is that new car sales still aren't to their 2005 peak and show no signs of climbing it.  Instead the industry as a whole looks to face a terminal decline.  And why wouldn't it?  Overall purchasing power declined over the last decade, and purchasing power for young people is even more crippled.  Combined with increasing congestion and commuting times as well as the aforementioned higher fuel prices the incentives are clear as crystal.

Let me be understood.  I hope things go well for Detroit.  The long suffering citizens deserve to live a life with the same dignity and opportunity as any other citizen of this great nation.  But a slew of hypocritical hipsters will not fix the fundamental dysfucntion of metro Detroit.  If things don't turn around in the next few years I could see a permanently reduced Detroit of around 500,000 people as the stable base of the core city as a 20 year long term projection.  The city doesn't have the job growth prospects to sustain much more.  The skills mismatch between the citizens of Detroit proper and the needs of 21st century industries is profound.  A shocking 47% of Detroiters were surveyed as functionally illiterate by the Detroit Regional Workforce Fund in 2011. 

This great failure of Detroit to educate and train its scions for the 21st century is tragic.  As David Hume once opined "Manufactures, therefore gradually shift their places, leaving those countries and provinces which they have already enriched, and flying to others, whither they are allured by the cheapness of provisions and labour; till they have enriched these also, and are again banished by the same causes."  Manufacturing will not come back to Detroit in a state resembling its former self.  And yet the denial of this reality is a bottomless well with which the region constantly refreshes itself.  As recently as 2009 Michigan governor Granholm publicly stated that Michigan was poised to manufacture new train cars for high speed rail even though David Hume predicted 200 years ago that they would likely be made in China.  And even if they were mandated to be made in America there are regions better qualified to make them such as Illinois and Minnesota amongst others.  But that dream of manufacturing will not die.  It is so sad it breaks my heart.

MichiganManOf1961

June 15th, 2013 at 12:25 AM ^

How is this still at a 2????  Exactly.  Detroit is dysfunctional beyond belief to most Americans.  I came to college loving my home city, going to games with friends on the subway, having fun downtown, and taking pride in my hometown.  Detroit... Jesus, ya'll might not want to admit it... but it is a freaking hellhole.  Honestly, anyone who takes on the problem is a better person than I, because I just look at the situation and could only throw up my hands.  

snarling wolverine

June 15th, 2013 at 12:20 PM ^

I agree with some of this, but you're selling Detroit short in terms of geography.  Canada is our largest trading partner and 25% of all trade between the countries goes through the Detroit-Windsor crossing.  That's a nice trump card there.  Detroit is also located along the Great Lakes shipping lanes, and goods shipped by boat from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois or farther north in Michigan pass through the Detroit River.  The region is still a vital shipping hub.  

Throw in the auto industry and you've got a good starting point there.  Then when you consider that Detroit is located in a state with a ton of natural beauty, thanks to its huge shoreline (not to mention the fact that no part of Michigan is more than eight miles from a lake), and by all means, it should be a place where people want to live.  It's really unbelievable that the city is considered so undesireable when you think of all this.  It took decades upon decades of astonishingly bad mismanagement for the city to reach where it is now.  No one would have predicted this 50 years ago.  

snarling wolverine

June 15th, 2013 at 3:42 PM ^

50 years ago, Detroit had over 1.5 million people and whites formed a majority of the population. It had approximately the same racial makeup  as Chicago and Philadephia at the time.  I don't think people would have predicted then that the city would now be a hollowed-out shell with 700K people and almost no white residents.  What happened to Detroit would be akin to the entire North Side of Chicago moving out and leaving that area full of abandoned houses.  

Most of the people who moved out did not leave the entire area; they just left the city for the suburbs, so this isn't just an economic issue.  Other big cities experienced white flight but not on this scale.  I don't want to veer into politics, but if a different person had been elected mayor in the early 1970s, maybe Detroit's history turns out differently - maybe it doesn't become a place that white people, en masse, decided they wanted no part of.  

 

 

 

PeteM

June 15th, 2013 at 11:30 AM ^

The article had some silly factoids (Wholefoods, sports teams, Jack White don't provide anything), but here are my reasons for optimism:

1. If Orr can restructure some of the retiree obligations, Detroit will be on a better footing financially than many cities across the country.  I don't know the details every other big city's union contracts, but suspect that many will be right where Detroit is now in 5-10 years without changes.  If Detroit can permanently reduce this liability it will be a step ahead.

2. The neighborhoods that are doing well seem to be picking up -- Indian Village, Palmer Woods, Corktown and the Wayne State area.  These are islands admittedly, but they are moving in the right direction.

3. As the article states, metro Detroit features more Fortune 500 companies than many other cities its size.  Yes, some are in the suburbs and many of tham manufacture outside of Detroit but as long they thrive they will provide employment and a reason for people to stay or move here.

4. The Riverfront, Canadian border, transportation infrastructure (airlines, highways, shipping, rail etc.) are reasons to believe that Detroit will have an economic future.

5. Strong state universities (I'm a Michigan grad but will admit that there are strong programs at MSU, Wayne, Oakland etc.) will at least keep many local kids in Michigan college and in U of M's case and to a lesser extent MSU brings kids to Michigan from other places some of whom will stay.

Two things need to happen.  One Detroit needs to aggressively downsize (tearing down abandonned houses, buying up isolated ones), and Orr needs to be successful inside or outside of Chapter 9.

My other, pie in sky suggestion is that we move to more regional government.  Why have Detroit, Dearborn, Trenton etc. police forces -- why not consolidate policing (and fire etc.) at the county level?  The same could be done for libraries, parks etc.

MichiganManOf1961

June 15th, 2013 at 11:53 AM ^

1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22914431 "Creditors were asked to accept 10 cents on the dollar of what they are due.  According to figures presented by Mr Orr, Detroit has some $11.5bn of unsecured debt."  Well... he's trying.

4.  What city doesn't have an airport, river, and railroads?  The Canadian border... meh.  Better to be a port city on the coasts or close to Mexico, I don't imagine Detroit particularly benefits (beyond a few Customs jobs) from some Canadian imports.  

5.  UM has a name that brings people to the state.  In the same vein, that name also allows UM grads to work anywhere in the US or internationally pretty easily.  If anything, UM opens doors for current Michiganders to more easily leave the state.  MSU I'd imagine opens doors in Big Ten country, while the smaller schools probably do a decent job keeping students in the city.

Compltely agree with downsizing... but that is easier said than done.  Detroit just can't say to a Seven Mile neighborhood... "Guess what, no more services!"  Even if certain areas are absolute drains on resources, I don't think the city government can abandon them and no other town will want to take a failing neighborhood.  Hell, this is probably one of the few times that the use of ED would be completely justifiable.