Core vs Burbs

The criminals are simply going where the getting is good. Why steal from the poor in the rundown part of town when you can get better stuff stealing from the rich folk out in the suburbs?

The same thing happens in Toledo. My car was broken into when I lived in West Toledo but now that I'm in a more urban area I've had no problems at all (knock on wood).

um, I think you missed the point, winger. The rich folk are moving INTO downtown where it's safer. They should move EVERYONE who lives inside Detroit city limits downtown, then there would be no one to prey on in the burbs.

^^ huh? Wouldn't the criminals then just prey on the rich people living downtown?

Did we read the same article, nana? The thieves will follow regardless of where the affluent folks live. Just an FYI, the suburbs are those surrounding cities outside of Detroit. Moving those poverty-striken folks living in the Detroit city limits to downtown will only make those living rich folks downtown retreat back to the suburbs. I cannot even comprehend the rest of your argument so I'm going to stop here.

ok, maybe I took your comment wrong or something. The article seemed to highlight people moving downtown and saying they felt safe and really didn't say much about the crime on the outskirts of town except the one guy who lost $300. They don't really say WHERE the crime is, except that "...cuts in police protection threaten to unleash more crime in outer neighborhoods that already lead the nation in violence.", so I'm not sure what's happening to the people inside Detroit but at the outskirts of the city lines. An article in Time a while ago said that some neighborhoods were thriving but that Detroit was no longer going to supply cops and fire services to you the farther away you were from downtown. Maybe that colored my perception of this article.

Walleye I think you are misinterpreting the article or maybe you have to have a better understanding of Detroit.
When they are saying crime in the burbs they are not referring to Bloomfield Hills or upscale wealthy suburban areas they are referring to Detroit suburbs ($10,000 homes) in relation to Toledo areas like the North side burbs. There is wealth in downtown Detroit (apartments running at $10,000 a month). Detroit the city not downtown is so geographically large it is not able to be policed with their staffing, but they can police a smaller downtown area with 2500 police extremely well.
It is easier to police a dense area. It is easier to maintain roads in a small area. It is easier to maintain water and sewage systems for a small area.

Nana your original interpretation was spot on.

Dell_diva they're not preying on the rich because they're surrounded by 2500 cops carrying guns downtown. They are preying on people not protected outside of the downtown in the other 138 square miles that is Detroit. To big of an area to always have a presence.

People are paying 10k a month in downtown Detroit?!

"When neighborhoods are filled with people who don't work for their keep no amount of pools/parks/renewal programs is going to work, Detroit has realized that."

Such a well stated, simple and undeniable fact. Yet, there are so many who can't understand/refuse to believe it. Their solution is to continue to confiscate $$ from the producers and give it to the non-producers so they (those who do the confiscating) can "feel" oh so good about themselves.

I have no problem whatsoever lending a temporary helping hand to those who, through no fault of their own, end up in circumstances beyond their control. Or a permanent helping hand to those who are unable to provide for themselves due to a physical or mental disability. But the nationwide practice of continuing to shovel piles of cash to those who have no intention of ever providing for themselves in exchange for votes has been a major reason for the economic circumstances this country finds itself in.

As I've stated previously, Detroit is the poster child for what happens when the government steps in and takes the place of the father figure.

Do people choose to live in say Sylvania and pay higher taxes because of tax payer funded parks like Orlander, Pacesetter, Plummer Park (swimming pool), etc…

Why don’t people in the Sylvania demand an end to funding these things? Is Sylvania also a model for what happens when government steps in and takes the place of the father figure?

Just for grins, I checked to see what the facilities Sensor mentioned cost me per year. (Data is from AREIS tax distribution feature):

Sylvania Area Recreation District (which includes Pacesetter and Plummer Pool) costs me $95.10 per year, which is 1.77% of my total property tax.

The Olander Park District costs me $43.52 per year, which is 0.81% of my total property tax.

It was interesting to see - I had never really looked at the specific breakdown for either of those 2 entities.

(Of course, I also have a portion going to fund the Metroparks, but so does the rest of Lucas County.)

(Interesting - the percentages I listed above were not based on my total property tax of $5,559.76. I guess they only use the total of levy items vs. the total property tax inlcuding special assessments.)

To begin with, last I knew, Sylvania does not have a severe crime issue as Detroit does. I also don't believe that Sylvania has an unwed mother birth rate approaching 80% as Detroit does. And, if Sylvania police are no longer responding to calls outside of their core downtown, have turned off the street lights outside of their downtown and have daily occurrences of residents being robbed at gunpoint or an unusually high percentage of abandoned structures being used as crack houses and meth labs, I'm unaware of it.

While many Sylvania residents very well may "choose" (ah, there's the magic word) to live there for the Parks and Recreation attributes, I'm sure many more "choose" to live there in an effort to insulate themselves from the aforementioned issues.

My post was regarding lending a helping hand for the basic necessities of life. Your response indicates that you view parks and pools as something necessary that we the producers provide to the non-producers. I do not.

Lastly, in response to your final question (ridiculous as it is), no, I do not believe Sylvania is a model for what happens when govt. steps in and takes the place of the father figure. I'm quite confident that the percentage of two parent households in Sylvania is exponentially higher than Detroit's.

Nope people stay in Slyvania because the taxes and property value are high enough to keep Po Folk out.

You kid yourself that Slvania-ites would stay if section 8 homes started popping up. No body gives a rat's patoot about a nice park when you neighbor's house is the target of a drive by or people who don't have to work in the morning are throwing a block party at 3am on a Tuesday night.

Mr Glass, your opening sentence really sums it all up. Looking at Europe these last couple years, and all the austerity measures they're being forced to take as they wake up to the reality check that they're under water, this is pretty much the same concept.

While the city of Detroit's population has been cut in half over the last few decades, its metro area is almost exactly what it was in 1970. So as the city hits hard times economically, it still has the same population base to service, which is pretty sprawled out as some have stated.

So as fiscal resources dry up, the city is forced to say, "look, we just don't have the money anymore to keep providing services across this massive area." You can't squeeze blood from a turnip, and urban sprawl is unsustainable in a contracting economy.

Nope people stay in Slyvania because the taxes and property value are high enough to keep Po Folk out.

I'm in Sylvania Township and so get the best of both worlds. I don't have to put up with the heavy handed, quick to spend other people's money Sylvania city government, and my police department is better than the city of Sylvania.

You kid yourself that Slvania-ites would stay if section 8 homes started popping up. No body gives a rat's patoot about a nice park when you neighbor's house is the target of a drive by or people who don't have to work in the morning are throwing a block party at 3am on a Tuesday night.

Boy howdy, you sure got that one right. It's dead quiet by 11:00 PM, even in the middle of summer. Even when the High School seniors are having their graduation parties, the whole business gets shut down by 10:30.

I think the worst part comes into the neighborhood with Section 8 housing. Some welfare queen manages to get all her ducks in a row and moves in with 8 kids. Then one baby-daddy shows up, then another, and another... That means boom cars and rap music until 5:00 AM when everyone else has to get up and go to work in an hour. But 'those people' have their civil rights - so there's nothing that can be done about it beyond a traffic ticket or two.

I hate that rap shit worse than anything.

With that amount of "dead" space in Metro Detroit, I'm surprised the state doesn't just step in and say "Screw it--we're going to take those areas and create entirely new townships, separate from Detroit city government."

It is plainly obvious (through policy for god sake) that Detroit cannot manage what it has. I can't think of another city in the USA that has a stated policy of "we aren't going there".

Split off those abandoned areas, pull the state militia/National Guard in to police it for a year while infrastructure (with state support) gets up and running, condemn/confiscate/auction plainly abandoned/dangerous property, then let 'er go. Gotta be better than just allowing the Wild West to continue in dark, abandoned Detroit. Might even allow some investment in those areas by those afraid to deal with Detroit's clearly fucked up local government.

I thought Bing wanted to shrink the city's footprint, correct?

Sounds like a reasonable plan OHT. However, can you imagine the screeching and screaming from so many different groups?

Leading the chorus would be Detroit's own city council. Those idiots have done everything they can to block the governor from putting Detroit into receivership. Primarily because they have their own private gangsta/turf/territory concerns.

Hell, cities in California want to use eminent domain to take possession of homes with under water mortgages. Sounds reasonable to me that Michigan could use it to do as you described.

...cities in California want to use eminent domain to take possession of homes with under water mortgages.

It is my understanding that eminent domain can only be used if the property is going to be used for a "public" purpose, such as new/expanded roads, public utilities, etc. (and, controversially, for "public spaces" such as a shopping development or other private enterprise--thank you Supreme Court...not). I don't think it's just "we'll take it because we can." You also have to pay reasonable market value for the property.

In Detroit's case, I don't know about eminent domain. If there was a way to do it, fair market value of the property and structure on some of these places would be about a nickel. Set up a title search and find out if or by whom these properties are owned. Then start making phone calls.

_"Hi, this is Julie from the state of Michigan. We noticed you have a property within the city of Detroit that looks like it was used for a Devil's Night Marshmallow Roast by some youths from the local civic organization....yeah that's the one....umm, how 'bout instead of us fining you $20,000 in code violations for that building that is practically falling in on itself, we take it off your hands for $3,000?....great....let us know where we can mail the check."

I know...I know..."keep daydreaming, OHT"....

"Is Sylvania also a model for what happens when government steps in and takes the place of the father figure?"

Probably not. Maybe a large percentage of Sylvania actually cares about its community.

"It is my understanding that eminent domain can only be used if the property is going to be used for a "public" purpose, such as new/expanded roads, public utilities, etc. (and, controversially, for "public spaces" such as a shopping development or other private enterprise--thank you Supreme Court...not). I don't think it's just "we'll take it because we can." You also have to pay reasonable market value for the property."

Absolutely correct OHT - back when this country actually followed the constituion and laws - I'm sure, like me, you remember those days.

But here's a link from none other than the huff-po:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/13/san-bernardino-mortgage_n_1672369.html

I use the huff-po so as not to have more reliable sources immediately refuted by our friends on the left.

With that amount of "dead" space in Metro Detroit, I'm surprised the state doesn't just step in and say "Screw it--we're going to take those areas and create entirely new townships, separate from Detroit city government."

I thought the zombie theme park was going to take care of the dead space?

Exactly, its the difference between earning something and being given something. Which do you cherish more, something you worked hard for and paid for with your own money or something free that you might not even like the color, shape or size of?

"With that amount of "dead" space in Metro Detroit, I'm surprised the state doesn't just step in and say "Screw it--we're going to take those areas and create entirely new townships, separate from Detroit city government."

wait, we're talking about the State of Michigan, right? I doubt they have enough extra money to pay a parking fine, much less underwrite the remaking of Detroit. Plus, how many people are in those 'new townships' to pay taxes for newly created cops and fires? Where are the admins going to some from...state appointed and paid? I doubt the rest of the state populace would see that as a good way to spend their tax money when they're hurting themselves.

Firstly, it's an idea. It's not a magic wand. What is next...just a big land and burned out building criminal "moat" around the city? If the city can't take care of its property or afford services, it should be reincorporated somewhere else. Alternatively, see if any of the surrounding burbs want to grow in.

The state was going to take over Detroit in April, and Detroit narrowly avoided this embarrassment.

As part of the agreement, there needed to be major cuts--the City Council of course rejected those, so the mayor has had to impose them to keep the state off his back.

Whether Michigan has "enough money" or whatever, the governor and associates sure seem determined not to fund the endless hole of bullshit that Detroit currently is. I'm sure they would rather fund something they control rather than the farce that currently exists...and most likely, it would be cheaper.

They aren't talking about the suburbs at all in that article. It's about how it is safer to live in the downtown core and city resources are being directed to those parts (downtown, midtown, new center) verse the other not so good parts of the city of Detroit.

Nothing a good 12 alarm fire couldn't clean up.

Criminals are going to go where there is something to steal and less police presence.