Is Detroit fixable? How would you fix it?

[courts]

Deregulate business as much as possible (cut zoning, licensing, other ordinances and block new ones), fire staff en masse, decriminalize drugs & other victimless crimes, try to set up charter schools/vouchers.

[courts]

Deregulate business as much as possible (cut zoning, licensing, other ordinances and block new ones), fire staff en masse, decriminalize drugs & other victimless crimes, try to set up charter schools/vouchers.

I want unique solutions, not anarcho-libertarian talking points.

I am neither of those things, troll.

[courts]

I love Detroit. I've never actually been there, but I love it none the less. My ideas:

STOP TEARING DOWN BUILDINGS (certain ones, at least): seriously, why are they doing this? I've been following Detroit since the fourth grade, and every time I think this city has turned the corner, they go and tear down some new skyscraper. Seriously, they go and reject bids for development and tear these stuff down. The city even helps "developers" tear down buildings in defiance of courts (see the Madison-Lenox case in 2005- was it so long ago?¹). The historic building stock is one of Downtown Detroit's strong suits, and it's a shame that it's being lost. It's shooting yourself in the foot. Tear down the rotting houses in the outer city! I'd place a moratorium on all demolitions in the city center.

URBAN FARMING? PAH!: One of the big ideas I hear these days is this "urban farming" on the "urban prairie", i.e., vacant lots. So, let me see, it's suggested that you have a half-deserted urban core, surrounded by farmland, surrounded by suburbia, surrounded by farmland again? You're only going to further the isolation of Downtown Detroit from the hinterland. Rather than farmland, why not extend the suburbia into the city? Southeast Michigan- ideally "Metro Detroit"- needs to be integrated further, and so I propose:

TAKE BACK THE CITY, ONE NEIGHBOURHOOD AT A TIME: Detroit will not repair itself overnight. We all know that. What needs to be done is to re-urbanize the city, ideally at a population of 1,500,000-2,000,000 people. This could be accomplished by focusing on certain neighborhoods and areas for development in stages- such as the New Center, Eastown, Brush Park and the areas south of Jefferson Ave. from Downtown to just past Belle Isle. Following the principles of New Urbanism, these regions could become fairly large "towns" themselves (well, the New Center would be a Jersey City-esque edge city²). Development would spread out radially from those areas, which would see particular investment in security, education, and general quality-of-life-improving services, until the city is generally covered.

Are you insane?!?!  Detroit needs to concede.  The city itself is never going to get its mojo back.  Programs like urban farming and destroying city blocks are the only solution to deal with what is right now a tremendous under-crowding issue. 

^^^
This too, obviously although that was sort of implied I think.

[courts]

Well the Central Buisness district is still there. So you could try building around that

But you can't because the CBD is effectively a just a colony of the outside world (and a massive, massive failure as a piece of so-called 'urban renewal'). Urban growth never 'naturally' flows out from that kind of place anyway. Besides, blight spreads.

Then improve upon it. Focus upon it, concentrate your efforts their. Stop demolishing its building, and start building infill. Soon it will be filled. Move to the New Center, move to Eastown, move to Palmer Park. Build those up. There's security in numbers. Make those places the hubs of growth.

Maybe if you made them "Green Zones," if you get my meaning. The city doesn't have the tax base at all to do what you're talking about, at this point they're so poor they might as well do what Arizona proposed and sell/rent out government buildings. If we were talking about another (less foregone and still somewhat charming) hellhole like say, Miami I might agree with you on some points but...

[courts]

Well the Central Buisness district is still there. So you could try building around that

But you can't because the CBD is effectively a just a colony of the outside world (and a massive, massive failure as a piece of so-called 'urban renewal'). Urban growth never 'naturally' flows out from that kind of place anyway. Besides, blight spreads.

Then improve upon it. Focus upon it, concentrate your efforts their. Stop demolishing its building, and start building infill. Soon it will be filled. Move to the New Center, move to Eastown, move to Palmer Park. Build those up. There's security in numbers. Make those places the hubs of growth.

Maybe if you made them "Green Zones," if you get my meaning. The city doesn't have the tax base at all to do what you're talking about, at this point they're so poor they might as well do what Arizona proposed and sell/rent out government buildings. If we were talking about another (less foregone and still somewhat charming) hellhole like say, Miami I might agree with you on some points but...

Selling city properties might be a good idea- oh, oops. No money? I'm talking about private development. Perhaps they could use your tax cuts.

I never mentioned tax cuts. The city is way past the point where tax credits or other gimmicks can turn things around, and I tend to find such policies to be ineffectual at best. And the distinction at this point between private and public is not all that relevant outside of what the courts say (or don't, as you have pointed out), the city is losing money regardless because it costs less to bulldoze than attempt to maintain them (fire, police, etc.).

[courts]

But seriously, do so many people think that Detroit legalizing drugs will be the way to save it? Really? I think it'd make it a mini-Juarez- like it can afford to get worse. We'd see large tax evasion and minimal revenue. It's also profiting over sickening people. Nonsense.

Many totally legal things in this country amount to 'profiting over sickening people' (alcohol, tobacco, processed foods, HFCS, daytime tv ). I don't really see how that's relevant to a discussion about a place that's so utterly bankrupt that the scenario outlined by actually isn't that far from reality. It's just a cost/benefit analysis, it doesn't make sense to commit resources to attempt to bust people for something recreational particularly when police are so ineffectual to begin with. I'm sure jfern thinks the same. Not that you really could legalize them since we're just talking about one city, but you could halt/de-prioritize enforcement or simply hand out fines.

Urban farming is actually a wonderful thing. It helps to provide impoverished families with the ability to support themselves and obtain access to higher quality foods than they would otherwise get. It's not ideal but better than leaving vacant land sit vacant. I'll admit here I'm thinking more in Cleveland terms than in Detroit terms and we've torn down far fewer buildings. We have a different strategy in this city that isn't about just flattening everything. We certainly do tear some down, but not nearly to the extent of Detroit.

It's not particularly hard to convert vacant malls to greenhouses or anything like that either, as you mentioned it's already going on over in places like Cleveland just on a much smaller scale than what's being discussed here.

[courts]

The problem with legalizing drugs (even if it were otherwise possible to do in one city) is that by legalizing them you send the message to at-risk youth that drug use is acceptable. Part of trying to fix an area is getting young people to make good life decisions and encouraging drug use is something that is not going to increase their chances of succeeding in college and integrating into larger society. Sure you could save a couple bucks by targeting police enforcement elsewhere, but does anyone really think the violent drug dealers and kingpins in a highly impoverished area like Detroit will become model citizens once you legalize drugs and build a junkie centers? The drugs are a means not an end for many. Most of the people on here are probably suburban white kids who support drug legalization because they have enough financial support that if they screw up their life, they’ll end up getting bailed out by family or end up in a rehab center. If I mess things up, I think my parents would intervene before I end up living under a bridge somewhere. The urban poor don’t have the resources to make poor decisions and escape poverty. By legalizing drugs, you might think you’re helping them, but you’re not; you’re indenturing them.

It's not really about help for me, although I think you'd be interested in seeing the statistics for things like heroin abuse in Switzerland (heroin use in general went way down with supervised injection rooms and the general perception among researchers was that it was less attractive to the population now), Portugal, Spain and other areas that have decriminalized/medicalized it - or the massive decline in HIV in New Haven (70%!) where needle exchange programs have been in place for many years now.I personally am uncomfortable with the idea of things like public welfare as it is on practical and ethical grounds never mind "harm reduction" policies, but if there's research backing it up I'm not going to personally discount it.

Now with that said, that's not totally what this is about. Mostly, it's just about resources. Detroit very obviously doesn't have the money to aggressively enforce federal law for things like Marijuana when they're already looking into 10% wage cuts and closing down things left and right. The money is barely there to deal with the violent drug dealers you mentioned, let alone some college kid toking up or looking to make some extra off-the table money to fund his habit. Also, just because something is legal (or passively tolerated by law enforcement) doesn't mean there won't be a stigma. Hell, I can tell you from experience that this country places enormous stigmas on the disabled or those with certain medical conditions and those are certainly not personal decisions, unlike drug use.

[courts]

The Swiss study nonwithstanding (and unfortunately I do not have access to the journal it’s in to actually read it), I am still skeptical of the idea that the use of a substance decreases once it’s legalized. For example, I suspect that legalizing medical marijuana has not reduced its usage in California.

I'm not making the general claim that legalization = decrease in use. I'm simply using it as an example that use does not necessarily increase with laxer policies. Of course marijuana isn't perceived as a skid row drug so you and I both know the comparison is sort of ridiculous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And again, the idea of government intervening in the economy bothers me. I don't agree with the idea of subsidies to companies of any kind, "stimulus" spending, etc. However, if there's proof that prescribing something like this has a substantial positive impact on spread of AIDS, lower drug use, lower crime rates, etc. then I'll pragmatically accept it. To me it seems like a rare example where the benefits outweigh the costs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If they're not enforced, then what is the point. To say 'we disapprove' (which frankly isn't really true)? Traffic bribes?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously this is not my only solution, just one out of several policies. However drug liberalization would probably have much more positive impact than subsidizing "historic buildings" or a "world class symphony orchestra" (like every other hellhole in this country).