Is Detroit fixable? How would you fix it?

[ilikeverin]

Yes, finally someone who gets it.

Actually, Inks seems to be directly contradicting you about whether it's a good idea to demolish things

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A what?

The us vs. them attitide of the city council needs to go.  Not every issue has a black vs. white component of it.  Stop treating it like it does, and accept outside help instead of sticking to the attitude that you can fix it yourselves - clearly you cannot.

I absolutely don't deny that the attitudes of the city council are disturbing, but as far as racial issues go it's hard to argue that anyone but the whites started it and whites are still the main perpetrators now.

Wholeheartedly agree.  But the council has the ongoing view that anytime somebody outside of Detroit tries to step in and help, that they're trying to take control away from the black population and have some kind of white takeover.

Yeah, that's true as well.  Argh.  Everything about Detroit is so depressing!

[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.

[Simfan34]

Yes, finally someone who gets it.

Actually, Inks seems to be directly contradicting you about whether it's a good idea to demolish things

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think we can agree that stuff like this can go:



However some houses, depending on their state and locale, can be and are being restored, even if they seem far gone:



It's a right shame that this stuff is gone, though. In a fantasy of mine, similar houses would be (re)built.



But there's no reason stuff like this should be destroyed. It's what makes the city. If it had been torn down, it would have never been restored:

[muon2]

Has the state ever given consideration to a subdivision of the city into smaller independent self-governing communities? That could provide the means for different leaders to try different solutions to the problems that may be too big when addressed at the scale of the whole city.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

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.

Pretty much what I was going to post verbatim, legalizing hard drugs in a deliberate manner where the state is willing to provide them and monitor their use actually works.

[TJ in Oregon]

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.

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 also question our ability to accurately determine the usage of a substance before legalization. As illogical as it is, I think harm reduction policies in sort of a Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell way are preferable to outright legalization because it still provides police with the ability to enforce drug laws when convenient. I have a serious problem with the government actually supplying street drugs because that’s something I don’t believe we should have to subsidize. Heck if we did, then we would probably pour millions of dollars into trying to convince kids not to use the same drugs we’re supplying.

The police are going to enforce all of these laws only when convenient. That’s not ideal but it’s the reality. The Detroit police probably shouldn’t be spending a ton of money to enforce marijuana laws in general, although I do think they should make a greater effort to enforce them among youth than among the adult population. No one ever enforces drug laws on college campuses anyway so that’s not saying much. There is some value in having those laws on the books even if the police aren’t actively seeking to enforce them.

But if our goal is to fix Detroit, we need to find some way of dealing with the people living there. A city is not just a collection of buildings, but more importantly the people living in them. The goal should be to make as many people in such impoverished areas into productive citizens. If we just focus on mitigating some devastating effects of drug use while tolerating it, we fail to prepare people for entry into employment. In the end, we want people to have jobs and keep those jobs.

[Simfan34]

Has the state ever given consideration to a subdivision of the city into smaller independent self-governing communities? That could provide the means for different leaders to try different solutions to the problems that may be too big when addressed at the scale of the whole city.

I suggested that.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm from Lincoln Park, just south of Detroit.  And on the topic of buildings - buildings that are beyond repair need to be torn down.  Old buildings that have historic value should be kept.

Places like Fort Wayne Michigan Central Station need to be fixed up, not just left to rot.  As many buildings as can be saved should be saved.

[muon2]

Has the state ever given consideration to a subdivision of the city into smaller independent self-governing communities? That could provide the means for different leaders to try different solutions to the problems that may be too big when addressed at the scale of the whole city.

I suggested that.

But has there been any discussion in Lansing?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It wouldn't work anyway. Detroit has sh!tty governance (of course) but sh!tty governance is a by-product of the wider fatal crisis.

[minionofmidas]

It's... probably too late now.

[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).

[Stardust]

This argument that drug legalization is morally equivalent to telling teenagers that it's acceptable to use drugs is bizarre to me. It smacks to me of 1990, George Herbert Walker Bush, thin ties and hoop earrings, Tammy Faye Baker and grey suit coats. It is strange to me this line of 'reasoning', so-called, has any partisans left at all.

[ilikeverin]

Has the state ever given consideration to a subdivision of the city into smaller independent self-governing communities? That could provide the means for different leaders to try different solutions to the problems that may be too big when addressed at the scale of the whole city.

I suggested that.

But has there been any discussion in Lansing?

Oh, God no.  That would be political suicide for politicians both from Detroit (who would be seen as "destroying their town", as if it isn't doomed already) and for politicians outside Detroit (who would be seen as helping Detroit and therefore tainted).

[DrScholl]

It is fixable, but it has to find another industry for that to happen. I think urban agriculture is the best idea, as well as renewable energy, as there is a lot that can be done with those two.

Second, fresh elections would be needed, get some new reformers on the council that have a fresh perspective.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Has the state ever given consideration to a subdivision of the city into smaller independent self-governing communities? That could provide the means for different leaders to try different solutions to the problems that may be too big when addressed at the scale of the whole city.

I suggested that.

But has there been any discussion in Lansing?

That would NEVER pass.  The Detroit City Council would be enraged over that proposal.  In fact, I can picture that council meeting.  Lansing would probably need their approval, and even if they didn't, the Council would raise such a huge fuss that even the most determined, well-intentioned legislator would give up.

[Wonkish1]

Wholeheartedly agree.  But the council has the ongoing view that anytime somebody outside of Detroit tries to step in and help, that they're trying to take control away from the black population and have some kind of white takeover.

This is very true actually! A very wealthy businessman approached Detroit and offered to donate 10s of millions of dollars of his own money to help set up Charter Schools in the city. He was turned down because he was threatening "the black power structure" of the city.

[Stardust]

Wholeheartedly agree.  But the council has the ongoing view that anytime somebody outside of Detroit tries to step in and help, that they're trying to take control away from the black population and have some kind of white takeover.

This is very true actually! A very wealthy businessman approached Detroit and offered to donate 10s of millions of dollars of his own money to help set up Charter Schools in the city. He was turned down because he was threatening "the black power structure" of the city.

I don't see why this is such a bad thing. I prefer, as a rule, local control to Federal control; but as a corollary to this I prefer local control to any other control. The same principle that argues against accepting Federal charity also suggests it's generally a bad thing for locales to become reliant on private charity. "Up by the bootstraps" ought to mean just that, as hard a road as that can be to walk sometimes.

[Wonkish1]

I don't see why this is such a bad thing. I prefer, as a rule, local control to Federal control; but as a corollary to this I prefer local control to any other control. The same principle that argues against accepting Federal charity also suggests it's generally a bad thing for locales to become reliant on private charity. "Up by the bootstraps" ought to mean just that, as hard a road as that can be to walk sometimes.

Wow that isn't very bright response. Detroit spends about $30k per student which is among the absolute highest among the country and only about a 1/4 of the students graduate on time. A wealthy man offers to donate a bunch of money to create a few more schools(and not change the existing schools at all) so that there may be a little more competition and the city refuses it on the grounds that it would "disrupt black power"*(more like our friends are administrators and are pocketing all of the money) is a joke. And your agreement with that decision is a joke.

[Stardust]

I don't see why this is such a bad thing. I prefer, as a rule, local control to Federal control; but as a corollary to this I prefer local control to any other control. The same principle that argues against accepting Federal charity also suggests it's generally a bad thing for locales to become reliant on private charity. "Up by the bootstraps" ought to mean just that, as hard a road as that can be to walk sometimes.

Wow that isn't very bright response. Detroit spends about $30k per student which is among the absolute highest among the country and only about a 1/4 of the students graduate on time. A wealthy man offers to donate a bunch of money to create a few more schools(and not change the existing schools at all) so that there may be a little more competition and the city refuses it on the grounds that it would "disrupt black power"*(more like our friends are administrators and are pocketing all of the money) is a joke. And your agreement with that decision is a joke.

My suggestion would simply be to eliminate that spending on education and be done with it, not try to plug the holes in funding for education with private donations that do nothing to fix the crux of the problem. Throwing money at the problem, no matter where the revenue comes from, does nothing to repair the absolutely broken public education system.

And I have no problem with 'black power', so long as that power isn't reliant on a State subsidy.

[muon2]

Has the state ever given consideration to a subdivision of the city into smaller independent self-governing communities? That could provide the means for different leaders to try different solutions to the problems that may be too big when addressed at the scale of the whole city.

I suggested that.

But has there been any discussion in Lansing?

That would NEVER pass.  The Detroit City Council would be enraged over that proposal.  In fact, I can picture that council meeting.  Lansing would probably need their approval, and even if they didn't, the Council would raise such a huge fuss that even the most determined, well-intentioned legislator would give up.

I suspected that would be the case, but I could imagine that some legislator from a more distant corner of MI might have proposed it anyway. I wouldn't expect much in the way of complaints from constituents in a district in central or western MI.

[Wonkish1]

Look lets first establish the fact that those that have pointed out that the problems lie in that Detroit's government is a corrupt group of people that care more about taking the money out of the city and giving it their friends in patronage jobs then trying to fix anything are spot on. As long as those corrupt people are in charge this is just an academic exercise because the things that would start to bring back the city are diametrically the opposite of what is ideal for a corrupt politician.


That said those that are pointing out that the unused housing stock should bulldozed to the ground are not recommending anything that is good for the city. All of it should be sold and if that means that it is going to be sold for $1k each so be it because at least you'll have some people will have personal responsibility for that housing(and if they deem that the property is more valuable bulldozed they'll do it themselves).

But to be clear an oversupply of housing is not a bad thing when your experiencing a rebound. The reason being is that it will keep a substantial part of cost of living(housing) near rock bottom in the city for a long time. That is just the kind of financial calculation many people will make if Detroit turns around. Assuming things turned around buying a fixer upper for $10k is just the type thing that could put someone over the top in picking Detroit in lets say several years down the road.


From my perspective, you have to look at what depresses businesses from showing up to an area the most and that is first and foremost crime. When you get to a level of very high crime in certain areas it is like a dead weight on a local economy on a scale that incomparable to anything else. So my priority number 1 would be to pay any amount of money that would be enough to get Chief Bratton. I may not necessarily be the greatest believer in "broken window theory", but it doesn't matter the guy is a very effective police chief and the best police management is needed in Detroit.

I would transfer the entire school district into receivership with the state running it and slash the budget because there is no way the state would do worse than the city with even half of the per child budget they currently use(and it would still be double the national average). And I would literally gut the entire non police work force down to a tiny, tiny fraction of what it is now.

With a balanced budget from the savings and a huge extra amount left over I would drive all of the extra money into the police and law enforcement technology, and literally break the back of the Detroit criminal underworld. For those that say legalize certain drugs in the city, fine. But for every law that stays on the books you literally just crush the criminal world.

Once the area becomes safer and given the rock bottom commercial real estate prices and a large population that is unemployed the first businesses will move in seeing a low cost business opportunity(will be able to pay them low wages given the amount of unemployment and property costs will be next to zero), and these are the same businesses that wont touch a neighborhood where rampant drug dealing and an occasional murder is happening.

[Stardust]

Look lets first establish the fact that those that have pointed out that the problems lie in that Detroit's government is a corrupt group of people that care more about taking the money out of the city and giving it their friends in patronage jobs then trying to fix anything are spot on. As long as those corrupt people are in charge this is just an academic exercise because the things that would start to bring back the city are diametrically the opposite of what is ideal for a corrupt politician.

In other words, Detroit is a microcosm of any organized polity that has a government at its head. All governments are ruled by "a corrupt group of people that care more about taking the money out of [the polity they govern]". The point is to learn how to work within those confines to maximum effect, even if, nine times out of ten, doing so requires establishing institutions which run parallel with the official State.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I absolutely agree with you here. One thing to take into consideration is that demolition projects cost money; you can't simply go in with a bulldozer and begin shellacking houses left and right, certainly not under the present regulatory regime. I'd have no problem with the city purchasing abandoned houses and selling them at far below market value.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this is where we depart. Instituting a law-and-order regime on the model of New Orleans is not only not going to salvage the local economy, it's going to depress the backbone of the community - which, like it or not, has got to be the local African-American community - even further. New Orleans did not 'boom' when Bratton was in office; quite the opposite, it underwent one of the longest periods of recession in Louisiana's history. And a lot of it had to do with the basic fact that public police corruption tends to undermine faith in local institutions.

It's not going to be what you want to hear, but it's going to be what you need to hear: Detroit's population has got to find their own salvation, so to speak. I cannot fathom for the life of me why we ought to oppose urban farming schemes, for instance, particularly if it means we can reduce Federal food subsidies that much further. Importing police chiefs who have a long and storied history of corruption in order to make the town 'feel' safer for outsiders is precisely the opposite of what needs to be done - decentralize, deregulate and desubsidize must be the order of the day.

[Wonkish1]

My suggestion would simply be to eliminate that spending on education and be done with it, not try to plug the holes in funding for education with private donations that do nothing to fix the crux of the problem. Throwing money at the problem, no matter where the revenue comes from, does nothing to repair the absolutely broken public education system.

And I have no problem with 'black power', so long as that power isn't reliant on a State subsidy.

Good answer! Again I don't think you or I exactly know the terms of the deal to begin with. Just pointing out that allowing for an alternative system to compete that doesn't have corrupt administrators siphoning off all of the money is probably a good thing.

[Stardust]

My suggestion would simply be to eliminate that spending on education and be done with it, not try to plug the holes in funding for education with private donations that do nothing to fix the crux of the problem. Throwing money at the problem, no matter where the revenue comes from, does nothing to repair the absolutely broken public education system.

And I have no problem with 'black power', so long as that power isn't reliant on a State subsidy.

Good answer! Again I don't think you or I exactly know the terms of the deal to begin with. Just pointing out that allowing for an alternative system to compete that doesn't have corrupt administrators siphoning off all of the money is probably a good thing.

One of the models I've been looking at recently is the (old) Black Panther Party. They largely opposed the welfare State, to the point that they'd harass local blacks who made it known they were on the dole. They ran local food pantries, local daycares, local classes; their most famous programme was Free Breakfast For Children. Party-line conservatives would balk, because that's what they'd do, but I'd welcome a return to that militancy among the African-American community if it meant a revitalization of that old charitably towards the idea of self-sufficiency.