This is one of the million dollar questions. How do you revitalize? Detroit is just one of the many facing problems due to abandonment, financial issues and unemployment. The conference held at the Westin Book Cadillac hotel in Detroit brainstormed ideas for revitalizing cities like Detroit.
What do you think of the ideas proposed? Should these ideas be applied to all cities or just the ones facing hardships?
Really fascinating. I really like the idea of "giving neighborhood-level groups municipal powers such as policing so these groups can govern smaller districts within city." I'm sure there would be a ton of backlash to this idea (would there be a decrease in the current number of police officers?), but I support giving communities the responsibility of policing themselves. (I'm thinking about the example of when I am mentoring younger kids--when I give trouble-makers real responsibilities, they tend to appreciate that I am taking them seriously and begin to act more responsibly.)
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, there needs to be an increased police presence. People arent going to move to an unsafe neighborhood. Secondly, stop electing corrupt officials. People like Monica Conyers and Kwamw Kilpatrick dont have the city's interests in mind when they are in office, just their pocket books. There also needs to be a diversified employment sector. Detroit will continue to slide as long as it is reliant on the auto industry as its backbone. The 'big three' have consistently shown that they are not reliable when it comes to job creation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Toni. This seemed like the best of the ideas proposed. I think it would increase accountability since these groups would be working directly in a smaller neighborhood, rather than on a city-wide level.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Richard, although I like the idea and direction this idea is going, I do think that there are a lot more issues at hand with Detroit that need to be considered as well. This can be a good start, but again, as Richard said, they need to find better leadership.
ReplyDeleteToni makes a good point, if people are taking charge of their community's public safety, perhaps citizens will take pride in their city. It will build leadership and will provide some new jobs as well. However, we do need a stronger police presence with trained public safety officers. Crime is bringing Detroit to its knees, and nobody wants to move to a city as dangerous as Detroit. If people see that the police force is increased and that we mean business, then maybe the rebuilding process can begin.
ReplyDeleteI'm for the same proposal, mostly because it's the least-bad option. Non-profits and local groups have pride for their area and would probably be very helpful in the revitalization process.
ReplyDeleteIf municipal government was dissolved and pushed outwards that would just create more pressure and stress for the county government. (Feels like increasing enrollment at K.) As for the third proposal... There's a reason that universities and hospitals aren't taxed. Doing so seems like an easy way to make a solution backfire.
Although I agree that the state does need to diversify. The big three have done a lot in the area of job creation when they can. We still have to address the issue of super-powered unions that make other states so much more attractive to industry.
ReplyDeleteDrastically cutting costs seems like the only real solution. Detroit will never again be the city it once was, since there isn't a compelling reason for businesses to move there, at least not on a huge scale.
ReplyDeleteThe city is built out to something like 160 square miles, 40+ of which is simply empty, with vacancy pretty huge in addition to that. All that land costs money to service though, for police, fire, water, etc. But it doesn't make money.
Shrinking the city is going to be tough, but it's about the only option if you want to be serious about getting costs and revenues in line.The other option is some sort of regionalism - the Detroit Metro region is pretty viable economically, it doesn't make much sense to have low value land in such close proximity to high valued land.