Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The problem is the auto industry died there. Like every other boom time, mourn it and move on.

The southern states, including many parts of Texas, are gak holes and have been gak holes for a lot longer than Detroit has had problems. Is the decline of agricultural profit a sign that this region should be abandoned, as has more or less been the case for ~150 years? Your attitude is not only detached from reality but utterly repulsive.

My attitude is realistic. if a city no longer has an underlying industry its going to die. Whats the problem?

This isn't a matter of death but a matter of debt. This idea that the city is "dying" is a myth used to justify the policy of dictatorship, which in turn comes down to wealthier white suburban areas wanting to control a poorer black urban area. The city is changing. It's not the metropolis of the 50s. But since when did a city need to be that in order to be "alive"? Frazzled, you sure do whine about the South but you never spare a thought for reality when it comes to insulting the rest of the USA.

Detroit is in my state, and you can drive to ANY spot in Michigan, and ask, and no one will tell you good things about Detroit, and Michigan is a rather large state. But in saying that, Im honestly on both sides of the fence on this. On 1 hand, Detroit has proven that it not only can run itself, but that it does so poorly that it drags the rest of the state down with it, and in an epic fashion. So on the that hand, I can agree that something HAS to be done about its current state. But Im not a fan of just giving someone power like that. I dunno....Id like to just level the damn place and say good luck to its inhabitants

 KingCracker wrote:
Id like to just level the damn place and say good luck to its inhabitants

Sort of like, if your car gets a flat tire you wish you could just tow it to the dump? Detroit is an important part of the MI economy. I think the issue is that white people don't want to live there and haven't wanted to live there for years. But they still want to control the resources, like the Cobo Center, like utilities, like Downtown, like the bridge. The trouble is, in a democracy, you don't usually get to control the government of a place where you don't live.

 Manchu wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:
Id like to just level the damn place and say good luck to its inhabitants

Sort of like, if your car gets a flat tire you wish you could just tow it to the dump? Detroit is an important part of the MI economy. I think the issue is that white people don't want to live there and haven't wanted to live there for years. But they still want to control the resources, like the Cobo Center, like utilities, like Downtown, like the bridge. The trouble is, in a democracy, you don't usually get to control the government of a place where you don't live.

Stop saying "Detroit is an important part of the MI economy" Until you give us a source for this factoid? Because I call BS, GM is a significant part of the economy, which Detroit had to BEG and PAY to stay in the city when it had plans to move to the tech-center outside of town.

Detroit produces nothing of note, and other than dan gilbert moving his company downtown (because he owns half of downtown) has no real industry or business. The suburbs are where the plants are now, the suburbs contain the majority of the office buildings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And this map should give you a real education on detroits issues.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/99999999/SPECIAL01/120606001

Hey Manchu, obviously you're intense about the subject, but wtf is up with all the "white" comments and implied racism?

 R3con wrote:
Stop saying "Detroit is an important part of the MI economy" Until you give us a source for this factoid?

Are you saying the most populous city in MI is not an important part of the MI economy? What exactly is your counterclaim and how do you prove it?

 Manchu wrote:
This isn't a matter of death but a matter of debt. This idea that the city is "dying" is a myth used to justify the policy of dictatorship, which in turn comes down to wealthier white suburban areas wanting to control a poorer black urban area. The city is changing. It's not the metropolis of the 50s. But since when did a city need to be that in order to be "alive"? Frazzled, you sure do whine about the South but you never spare a thought for reality when it comes to insulting the rest of the USA.

1. When do I whine about the South?
2. Michigan is full of Damnyankees. We're supposed to not like you.
3. Unemployment is what 8000% now? Sounds like your industry is dead there. I've seen a lot of Michigan plates in the last two years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 R3con wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:
Id like to just level the damn place and say good luck to its inhabitants

Sort of like, if your car gets a flat tire you wish you could just tow it to the dump? Detroit is an important part of the MI economy. I think the issue is that white people don't want to live there and haven't wanted to live there for years. But they still want to control the resources, like the Cobo Center, like utilities, like Downtown, like the bridge. The trouble is, in a democracy, you don't usually get to control the government of a place where you don't live.

Stop saying "Detroit is an important part of the MI economy" Until you give us a source for this factoid? Because I call BS, GM is a significant part of the economy, which Detroit had to BEG and PAY to stay in the city when it had plans to move to the tech-center outside of town.

Detroit produces nothing of note, and other than dan gilbert moving his company downtown (because he owns half of downtown) has no real industry or business. The suburbs are where the plants are now, the suburbs contain the majority of the office buildings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And this map should give you a real education on detroits issues.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/99999999/SPECIAL01/120606001

oh there's Gross Pointe!? I feel the need to start singing blister in the son and watch Dan Akroyd unionize assassins...

 Lint wrote:
Hey Manchu, obviously you're intense about the subject, but wtf is up with all the "white" comments and implied racism?

A common myth about MI is that the whole state is some kind of post-apoc wasteland. Actually, some of the suburbs surrounding Detroit (without even getting into Western and Northern MI) are extremely wealthy. They are also overwhelmingly white whereas the city itself is overwhelmingly black. As you might imagine, the same goes for their respective elected officials. The myth goes that the black government of Detroit has mismanaged the city into public catastrophe while the white suburban areas have been prosperous and responsible -- therefore, because the whites are tired of supporting the blacks' mismanagement, the whites should simply take over. Now, this is rarely talked about in such explicitly racial terms by the people who want to do it -- and I think it's obvious why they would avoid that characterization. But the fact remains, race is obviously tied up in this. This whole dictatorship idea comes down to saying poor black people aren't responsible enough for democracy. But you know, there are other ways of explaining Detroit's decline: for instance, segregation allowing for the exploitation and abandonment of a black urban population -- a cycle of irresponsible, oppressive measures yielding dramatically declining returns. For more on that, you should read Thomas Sugrue's book on Detroit, The Origins of the Urban Crisis.

Appoint Mitt Romney full dictatorial powah... he's a turn-around specialist ain't he?

Whembly, didn't you see Revenge of the Sith?

 Manchu wrote:
Whembly, didn't you see Revenge of the Sith?

bwahahaha!

I'd still argue he'd be good, because you need a qualified politician AND a business person to bring Detroit back from the brink. Oh... someone when large gonads... lighsabers help too.

 Manchu wrote:

 Lint wrote:
Hey Manchu, obviously you're intense about the subject, but wtf is up with all the "white" comments and implied racism?

A common myth about MI is that the whole state is some kind of post-apoc wasteland. Actually, some of the suburbs surrounding Detroit (without even getting into Western and Northern MI) are extremely wealthy. They are also overwhelmingly white whereas the city itself is overwhelmingly black. As you might imagine, the same goes for their respective elected officials. The myth goes that the black government of Detroit has mismanaged the city into public catastrophe while the white suburban areas have been prosperous and responsible -- therefore, because the whites are tired of supporting the blacks' mismanagement, the whites should simply take over. Now, this is rarely talked about in such explicitly racial terms by the people who want to do it -- and I think it's obvious why they would avoid that characterization. But the fact remains, race is obviously tied up in this. This whole dictatorship idea comes down to saying poor black people aren't responsible enough for democracy. But you know, there are other ways of explaining Detroit's decline: for instance, segregation allowing for the exploitation and abandonment of a black urban population -- a cycle of irresponsible, oppressive measures yielding dramatically declining returns. For more on that, you should read Thomas Sugrue's book on Detroit, The Origins of the Urban Crisis.

I thought the myth was that Michigan was incredibly cold and everyone had bad accents?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Appoint Mitt Romney full dictatorial powah... he's a turn-around specialist ain't he?

Its like, I mentioned this before. The Dark side is stong with this one!

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Lint wrote:
Hey Manchu, obviously you're intense about the subject, but wtf is up with all the "white" comments and implied racism?

A common myth about MI is that the whole state is some kind of post-apoc wasteland. Actually, some of the suburbs surrounding Detroit (without even getting into Western and Northern MI) are extremely wealthy. They are also overwhelmingly white whereas the city itself is overwhelmingly black. As you might imagine, the same goes for their respective elected officials. The myth goes that the black government of Detroit has mismanaged the city into public catastrophe while the white suburban areas have been prosperous and responsible -- therefore, because the whites are tired of supporting the blacks' mismanagement, the whites should simply take over. Now, this is rarely talked about in such explicitly racial terms by the people who want to do it -- and I think it's obvious why they would avoid that characterization. But the fact remains, race is obviously tied up in this. This whole dictatorship idea comes down to saying poor black people aren't responsible enough for democracy. But you know, there are other ways of explaining Detroit's decline: for instance, segregation allowing for the exploitation and abandonment of a black urban population -- a cycle of irresponsible, oppressive measures yielding dramatically declining returns. For more on that, you should read Thomas Sugrue's book on Detroit, The Origins of the Urban Crisis.

I thought the myth was that Michigan was incredibly cold and everyone had bad accents?

That's just reality Frazzled.

 Manchu wrote:

 R3con wrote:
Stop saying "Detroit is an important part of the MI economy" Until you give us a source for this factoid?

Are you saying the most populous city in MI is not an important part of the MI economy? What exactly is your counterclaim and how do you prove it?

I made no such claim I only asked for SOURCES for yours.

But for my counter claim Ill just point you straight to unemployment rates. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/27/detroits-unemployment-rate-michigan-increase_n_2550956.html

I also think the "most populous" city is a title Detroit will lose soon.

As far as the white black thing Detroit has been throwing out the race card for so long its somewhat of a joke these days. In fact they just turned down a ton of help/money from the state because "whitey" wanted to steal their "jewels"

http://www.thetrumpet.com/article/10430.28862.0.0/economy/detroit-has-a-spending-problem

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/19/us-usa-detroit-emergency-idUSBRE91I13I20130219

how about the people who own busineses in detroit here's what they think

The Detroit Regional Chamber also issued a statement following Snyder's announcement: "The final barrier to Detroit's ongoing renaissance is financial stability and local government stability – an emergency manager will be in a position to make the quick and difficult decisions that have eluded city government. While there has been important progress under Mayor Dave Bing, the Chamber echoes the Governor's sentiments that the status quo is no longer acceptable and the city's citizens, neighborhoods and businesses deserve more rapid change."

Notice when I make my "claims" I'm giving you links to follow to the sources that support my "claims" unlike just saying "DETROIT IS IMPORTANT!" Reason being most people know that bankruptcy will destroy Detroit's ability to pull bonds and an EM will not, and at this point your not moving forward without a EM or Bankruptcy.

Even a strong MI accent (which is mostly vowel flattening) isn't as pronounced as that of other Midwestern states.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 R3con wrote:
Notice when I make my "claims" I'm giving you links to follow to the sources that support my "claims" unlike just saying "DETROIT IS IMPORTANT!"

Your claim seems to be that Detroit is a drain on MI's economy. I haven't seen you give a source for that or even clarify what exactly that means. I'm not disputing that the city has a high unemployment rate. What I dispute is that said rate means Detroit is not important to MI's economy. Detroit is clearly important to MI's economy. Aside from the hundreds of thousands of Michiganders who live and work there as individuals, there's also the fact that Detroit is still a major commercial and financial hub. If you need a source, get into your car, drive to the river, and look at the Ren Cen. Just because the city isn't what it was in the 50s doesn't mean it's "dying" or "dead."

I work 3 blocks from there, and due to employee discounts sometimes stay there for tigers games. I am very familiar with Detroit, if you read my earlier posts you'll see I even graduated from Wayne State. I get to pay income taxes to Detroit because my employer got a sweet deal to stay in the city. I still wouldnt walk from cobo to greektown at 1am.

Detroit is not a center of commerce, it is no longer a major port (other than road traffic from canada) and other than a few centers of artificially created industry, like gilbert moving rock financial down, or the stadium districts. Detroit really has nothing going for it. You want to know why most grocery stores and big chains avoid the city, because they pay people a ton of money to study demographics and potential income streams.

Wayne and Oakland counties are undoubtedly drivers of SE Michigan's Economy.

Detroit is losing population faster than the few "good" neighborhoods can replace them. Even when offering free homes and discounted loans to employees of certain facilities (police, city workers, henry ford).

The amount of money thrown at the cobo center, the school district (both public and private money) and the new train to nowhere down woodward all speak to me of tax dollars that could be better spent in other areas of the state. Not to mention my earlier post about the farrier that the water department keeps on hand.

An EM is needed to clean up the union contracts, and knock down some of the ridiculous levels of corruption in the city. Bing has made an amazing effort to get the city on the right track only to be blocked by the city council at every turn. An EM will get around such idiocy.

 R3con wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
It's not as simple as letting it die Frazzled. Detroit is responsible for more then half of the GDP of the state. An irresponsible government would just let it die.

Source, because I call shenanigans!

Michigans GDP is about 385 billion. The Detroit metro area produces 175 billion of that, though 8 years ago it was 203 billion. So it's ranged anywhere from just under, to a good bit over half of the entire states GDP over the last decade.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MINGSP

http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/richest-cities-2005.html

http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/richest-cities-2005.html

 Manchu wrote:
Sort of like, if your car gets a flat tire you wish you could just tow it to the dump?

More like if my car gets a flat tire, I get rid of that tire rather than trying to repair it. Especially if the tire's locked in an economic death spiral that threatens to set the rest of my car aflame.

 Seaward wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Sort of like, if your car gets a flat tire you wish you could just tow it to the dump?

More like if my car gets a flat tire, I get rid of that tire rather than trying to repair it. Especially if the tire's locked in an economic death spiral that threatens to set the rest of my car aflame.

Reference post just above yours. Detroit is more then just a tire. More like the engine. One that can be repaired.

 djones520 wrote:
Reference post just above yours. Detroit is more then just a tire. More like the engine. One that can be repaired.

Not, it seems, by popularly-elected politicians. I think we've pretty much established that no one's going to vote against keeping the gravy train running, even if it's completely unaffordable and ultimately disastrous.

 Seaward wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Reference post just above yours. Detroit is more then just a tire. More like the engine. One that can be repaired.

Not, it seems, by popularly-elected politicians. I think we've pretty much established that no one's going to vote against keeping the gravy train running, even if it's completely unaffordable and ultimately disastrous.

Well, Snyder was popularly elected. And he needs to act in the best interests of the state, and the best interests of the state is to pull Detroits collective head from it's own ass.

This is not a dictatorship. Snyder, a popularly elected government official is enacting a law put in place by popularly elected representatives. The city has the ability to appeal the process. The law has survived legal challenges. There has to be measures in place to protect the rest of the state from Detroit, and thats what this is.

Dictators can be elected. In this case, it's even more removed. One guy is elected and then appoints a dictator. Plus, I'm not saying appointing a dictator in this case is illegal (without accepting that it is actually legal). What I am saying is, appointing a dictator is not the answer.

Why can't Detroit pay its bills? Very simply, because the tax base necessary to pay those bills is missing. Sure, the city government has been corrupt and otherwise mismanaged funds. But corruption and mismanagement exist in every government. It's just not as noticeable a problem when the tax base more than accounts for those facts. See for example New York and Chicago.

Taking a look at Sugrue's research, you can see that the people who benefited from the city also used to live in the city. Nowadays, many of the people who benefit from the city do not live there but instead live in the surrounding suburbs. And, moreover, the people who live in the suburbs are white while the people who live in the city are black. What happened? According to Sugrue, city planning that amounted to white flight and de facto segregation.

The city and, for some time, all that it had been doing still existed but a large portion of the tax base was quickly evaporating. So naturally, less and less was possible regarding the city budget. Add to regional economic abandonment the particular problems of racial segregation. Now speed that up so it happens over the course of two or three generations. How could anyone think the results would be anything but devastating?

In other words, Detroit's problems are not as simple as its elected officials' irresponsible or corrupt choices since the late 1970s. So replacing them with a dictator on behalf of the "responsible" suburbanites (whose families exploitatively abandoned the city) is not going to undo the problems. The only possible good I can see from this, not that it is inconsiderable, is temporarily forestalling bankruptcy. But the cost will be radicalizing the city's politics such that further efforts, at least in a democratic context, will be even less possible.

More comprehensive changes are needed to address the real, comprehensive problems. Denying American citizens democratic elections is not one of them. Instead, people need to realize that Detroit of 1950 is gone for good. That's not to say that Detroit will never be prosperous again. But Detroit can only ever be prosperous again as part of a larger region. This is an economic reality: the city plays an important role beyond the borders of its tax jurisdiction; the surrounding suburbs still depend on Detroit as their hub.

I think the city should be governed by itself in the context of regional oversight. What that means in practice is that the mayor of Detroit would participate in a council along with representatives of the county governments of Wayne, Macomb, and Oakland. That means the counties would have a say in what happens in Detroit. But that also means Detroit would have a say in what happens in the counties. The reality is this is one economic unit. It needs to be governed that way.

Of course, the counties will oppose this for the same reason white flight happened in the first place, the same reason they have assiduously prevented any public transportation between the poor black urban areas and wealthy white suburban ones. If the coming dictator could force these issues, we might see some lasting solutions emerge. But of course, wealthy white neighborhoods will never tolerate having democracy taken away from them.

I find it interesting that Manchu's argument boils down to "Racists"

 Seaward wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Sort of like, if your car gets a flat tire you wish you could just tow it to the dump?

More like if my car gets a flat tire, I get rid of that tire rather than trying to repair it. Especially if the tire's locked in an economic death spiral that threatens to set the rest of my car aflame.

I had a blowout last week on 290 gonig 70. Had to get rid of what was left of the tire and wheel. Yargh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Reference post just above yours. Detroit is more then just a tire. More like the engine. One that can be repaired.

Not, it seems, by popularly-elected politicians. I think we've pretty much established that no one's going to vote against keeping the gravy train running, even if it's completely unaffordable and ultimately disastrous.

I think you just described the US government as well.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I find it interesting that Manchu's argument boils down to "Racists"

Are you looking at Detroit and not seeing a race issue? That would be very interesting, too ...

 Manchu wrote:

Of course, the counties will oppose this for the same reason white flight happened in the first place, the same reason they have assiduously prevented any public transportation between the poor black urban areas and wealthy white suburban ones. If the coming dictator could force these issues, we might see some lasting solutions emerge. But of course, wealthy white neighborhoods will never tolerate having democracy taken away from them.

White's have fled alot farther than wayne county hell most of them the ones with money at least are in Livingston County. Detroit will not recover population because of racism I agree, but not white on black but blacks vs whites. When a minority white is voted onto city council to replace one of the clearly racist members of council then we'll have a chance at recovery.

The white flight will not reverse until, the murder and crime rate decrease to the point that raising a family is viable. Also the detroit school system needs to put out a better product, no one is going to by choice subject their kids to a school system with a 30% literacy rate at graduation. Schools of choice have helped but schools of choice has created a ripple effect in schools of choice, Detroit'ers take their kids to Ferndale, Ferndale residents drive their kidies farther north.

I've seen lots of arguments against the EM but not one plan for how to fix the budget problems or the population loss, or the fact that city unions have a choke hold on the city, things that a bankruptcy will only make things workse....Detroit is a a absolute mess, and I'd love to see what the EM can do to fix it.

 Manchu wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I find it interesting that Manchu's argument boils down to "Racists"

Are you looking at Detroit and not seeing a race issue? That would be very interesting, too ...

Why are you saying its a race issue? Don't you have the burden to prove such an offensive statement?

You post offensive statements all the time and never prove them!

I wouldn't mind so much about appointing an Emergency Manager in an undemocratic fashion for a large metropolitan area, but "IF" this right-wing schemes fails the Right won't stop and think through the premise in the first place. Instead, they will double down and say that the emergency manager didn't have ENOUGH power.