One of the most dreaded words or terms heard in the corporate world is downsizing. Simply put, it
usually means several people are about to lose their jobs, at the very least. It can throw entire areas into turmoil, if enough people are put out of work. If it is dreaded in the corporate world, consider how you would feel if the mayor of your city suddenly announced it was downsizing. That’s right, the place where you had lived for years was suddenly closing down and the only way you would be able to keep the services you had came to depend on would be to pick up and move to another neighborhood. That, my friends, is exactly what is about to happen in Detroit, Michigan.
I had been aware of this story, but had not paid it much attention, as I believed it would not take place. It was simply beyond my comprehension that a city administration would seriously consider taking such drastic steps. After I was alerted by one of our readers to a news article in The Detroit News, I did a little more research and it appears that Mayor Dave Bing is very serious about his proposal. Let’s read a little of what he has in mind.
Mayor Dave Bing said Wednesday he “absolutely” intends to relocate residents from desolate neighborhoods and is bracing for inevitable legal challenges when he unveils his downsizing plan.
In his strongest statements about shrinking the city since taking office, Bing told WJR-760 AM the city is using internal and external data to decide “winners and losers.” The city plans to save some neighborhoods and encourage residents to move from others, he said.
“If we don’t do it, you know this whole city is going to go down. I’m hopeful people will understand that,” Bing said. “If we can incentivize some of those folks that are in those desolate areas, they can get a better situation.”
“If they stay where they are I absolutely cannot give them all the services they require.”
He said there’s no timeline, price tag or estimate on the number of people who would have to be moved, but said federal funding would be needed. Bing said he plans to focus on the neighborhoods in which Detroit Public Schools plans to build schools with $500.5 million in bonds voters approved last year.
“You can’t support every neighborhood,” Bing told WJR’s Frank Beckmann. “You can’t support every community across this city. Those communities that are stable, we can’t allow them to go down the tubes. That’s not a good business decision from my vantage point.”
Even for someone like me, living all the way down here in Oklahoma, it has been evident for quite some time that Detroit is in trouble. They have been struggling financially for years, but is downsizing the city really the answer?
The problems I have with downsizing an entire city are multiple. First of all, who makes the decision as to which neighborhoods are viable and which are not? How is the decision going to be made on who gets to keep their homes and who has to give them up? Before someone makes the comment about how some decisions have to be made, even though they are hard decisions, let me ask you this question. How would you like it if a city official told you that your neighborhood was closing down and you had to leave the home you had bought and paid for with the sweat of your brow? I know I wouldn’t like it and I suspect most of you would agree.
How are the properties to be acquired? Will they use eminent domain, a practice that I feel has been used entirely too often in our country? Detroit voters approved a prohibition on the city government’s ability to do that in 2006, but will that prohibition hold up if the government is determined to move forward with this plan? If they do, how will they pay for those properties, given the fact that they are nearly bankrupt already? Oh, that’s right. More federal funds will be needed, as mentioned by Mayor Dave Bing in the quote above. I don’t know about you, but I am not comfortable with the precedent that will set.
One thing for sure, there will be legal challenges. Depending on which neighborhoods are slated for closure, those challenges could include racial discrimination, class discrimination, education opportunities, etc. etc. No matter which neighborhoods are chosen, those who live in them will have very valid reasons to dispute the decision. Does something need to be done? I would think the answer to that would be yes. Is the answer really downsizing the entire city? I am not so sure about that.
The questions this scenario raises are many. Some are already suspecting the city government of wanting to close down certain neighborhoods, in order to gain control of them for economic development, but probably the most important one is this. How did this city progress to the point of having to close down entire neighborhoods, just to be able to survive as a city? There are other questions, but that one trumps them all. What has caused this decline of a once great city?
For another interesting look at the problems Detroit is facing, please read Feral Detroit, from Forbes.
You asked some great questions, starting with whether downsizing is the answer. I have no idea what Bing is up against, but this line from the article sticks with me:
A “block-by-block study of the 139 square-mile city showed that roughly one in three parcels are vacant lots or abandoned homes.”
That would suggest, indeed, that the city is paying full boat to provide services to some neighborhoods with only a 33% occupancy. Not sure what the solution is, but there appears to be a definite problem for a city that just sold its football stadium for $500,000 because it couldn’t afford the maintenance. Federal money? BIG question.
What caused the demise of Detroit? “Company towns” are always at risk when their main industry tanks and the dominoe effect begins. But I really think this is a two pronged story: 1) Free trade agreements that forced the American auto industry to compete while still under the influence of 2) fat, greedy unions, slow to understand the shifting business climate. The unions, in essence, created a “socialized state” within a private atmosphere. Long after most industries and large coporations saw lifetime pensions and health benefits as unsustainable and dangerous to the continuing health of their bottom lines, Detroit unions continued to insist on keeping outdated models of compensation on the books. The decay of the American auto industry can be traced to both free trade agreements and union representation that protected not their memberships’jobs but their own.
I am a supporter of the protective measures that a union can give to a membership, especially in terms of safety and living wages. But they went too far in Detroit, and created a working class with unrealistic expectations of lifetime care.
I keep wondering if some of the “new energy” manufacturing projects will find their way to Detroit and help revitalize the community. But I wonder if the union climate would prevent that.
This is a fascinating story and one I hadn’t heard. It’s been many years since my last visit to Detroit but even then it was a city in obvious decline. There are magnificant old mansions in downtrodden parts of the city that have simply been abandoned and left to the wrath of the elements. Forced relocation is a wild and drastic step but I certainly understand Bing’s motivation. I can’t think of a reasonable alternative but the decision-making and implementation of this program could get ugly in the extreme. This is going to be very interesting to watch. Great post!
This is one of the largest “sustainable development” projects to be proposed. Basically, the idea is to herd populations into selected areas where they can be controlled. It’s been talked about or years. Now, it’s being attempted on a large scale. The real question is if the folks in Detroit will have the resources and will to do it as intended.
.-= Matt´s last blog ..Does Single Payer Kill? =-.
Matt – that is exactly what I was wondering. It sounds like a control move to me. Wow! This is a little scary. Is this even legal? And if it is, and they succeed in Detroit, what does that mean for the rest of America?
Geesh!
.-= Dominique´s last blog ..Am I MASKING? =-.
I live 20 minutes away from Detroit and my parents have a small business there.
It reminds me of Gotham City in BATMAN. Not the Tim Burton version, but the one with Christian Bale.
If you don’t live here and have just visited. I’m not exactly too sure if you can have that much of a say in the matter.
I’m pretty sure it would upset a lot of people to hear the word downsize. I actually see it as a positive thing. Those who can afford to move out of the slums have done just that. But I feel that half of Detroit is a ghost town. And the other half is a FACADE. As it has fancy casinos, and tourist areas. Occasionally, the traffic signals don’t work. The city’s sewer drains over flow because of broken pipes. During the winter, when it snows, some streets don’t even get plowed.
relocating those who can’t afford to is far better than living in a house they paid for back in the 70′s and are now having to live next to crack houses and prostitutes. Trust me, if they’re not willing to move, it’s because they’re probably peddling something illegal out of their homes.
Michelle,
Thanks for taking the time to comment on the article.
I don’t feel I am trying to have so much of a say in what happens in Detroit. I just wanted to comment on it and see what other people thought about it. I do think it is cause for concern if any elected official starts taking steps of this magnitude and it needs to be looked at carefully.
I live there and let me tell you, This sounds very promising. It is really THAT BAD. Don’t believe me? Just Google Earth Detroit and take a close look. The neighborhood I grew up in IS GONE! On the block I used to live on 2 houses remain! There are numerous blocks just like it all over the city. The people who would be relocated are few and probably would welcome the chance to move out of their areas. I support it as a lifelong Detroiter!