Detroit City Council Districts

I attended the Detroit City Council’s special hearing on the proposed maps for new council districts on Friday, February 3. The districts were mandated by the 2011 vote that approved a revised city charter. It has been over 80 years since Detroit has elected council members by district; this revision replaces election at-large representation. The hope is that having a new hybrid system (two council members will still be elected at large, and seven will come from districts) will increase accountability for improvements and the livability of the city.

I noted two threads among the citizens who commented at the hearing. First (and this was duly noted by the news media that covered the hearing), people are attached to their neighborhoods, and they value the connections their neighborhoods have with others that are close-by their own. They spoke about shared responsibility for parks and area-wide initiatives, for coordinating on development and crime initiatives, and so on. Virtually all of them prefer districts that will maintain these relationships, so that when neighborhood committees meet with council members everyone will “be at the table,” as one resident put it. Another speaker, who works for a community-based health program in Brightmoor, reiterated that point. Council President Charles Pugh asked where, exactly, she lived, and she responded that she lived in the Riverdale Park neighborhood, which is a very small section between Old Redford and Brightmoor. Pugh wasn’t familiar with the neighborhood, but he put it into context by clarifying that it was in the far Northwest area of the city.

Several members of the Council pointed out that setting the boundaries for the election districts wouldn’t stop the relationships that already exist, and that neighborhood boundaries don’t define the functioning of Detroit or the place of citizens within it. But, one speaker from Corktown said that there is a strong emotional tie to the neighborhoods, and that Pugh himself had proved that connection when he placed Riverdale Park in his own mental map of the city to understand how the speaker related to the rest of Detroit. Neighborhoods do matter, and the relationships between neighborhoods are just as important as the relationships people build on their own blocks.

The second thread I noticed came from several residents who spoke about the institutions and amenities within the proposed districts. Some talked about these as if hospitals, schools, shopping districts, and the like would serve them better if they were within the boundaries of their council district. This is what really prompted the response from council members about district boundaries not being walls separating neighborhoods. They warned about balkanizing the city.

I think that this interest in how amenities are distributed reveals a deeper issue: people are very concerned with fairness in the way constituents are treated, and, second, they hope that creating a City Council elected by district will empower neighborhoods that have been neglected and forgotten by city government. Development and access to the everyday necessities of life are NOT evenly spread across the city, and people are desperate for the things that wealthier or more powerful citizens take for granted and demand. What the speakers were expressing was their dream of a city that works on a neighborhood level.

I just saw a story about a city council member in Seattle who said that the aim of the city was to create neighborhoods that are “safe, green, and connected.” Green might be too specific, but if you let that term mean sustainable economically, environmentally, and politically, then that phrase perfectly describes what every speaker at the hearing on Friday wants, and what very few neighborhoods in the city have. I’m not so sure that everyone on the present council recognizes that.

Letter to Gov. Snyder

I wrote this letter to Michigan's Governor Snyder, outlining my concerns about the cuts he has proposed in his 2011 budget. His cuts run counter to the things I believe we need to do to strengthen this state.

Dear Governor Snyder:

While I agree that the fiscal and tax structure in Michigan needs to change to foster business growth in the state, I do not believe that some of your proposed changes to next year’s budget are in the best interest of either business or residents. In particular, I believe that your cuts to education (K-12 and higher education) and to targeted tax credit programs are counterproductive and bring great harm to the state.

I ask you to reconsider these cuts:

K-12 education should be funded at a rate higher than has been the case over the last several years. Your proposed cuts will gut education funding, leading to grossly overcrowded classrooms and lower performance. I believe that K-12 education is the single most important area of concern in the state, and any cuts that reduce the quality of educational opportunity for all students must be avoided.

Similarly, I support continued and expanded funding for higher education. Study after study have shown that increasing the average level of education brings the best return on investment. In particular, in region after region around the U.S. and the world as a whole, the percentage of the population with a college degree has a strong correlation with economic health. We should do everything possible to increase this number and to maintain it.

Brownfield tax credits have become an important tool in the economic redevelopment of our cities and many other areas, as well. As we shift from a heavy manufacturing economy to a knowledge-based economy, we have to deal with the “fallout” left behind by the industries that once fueled our growth. It is too easy to close our eyes to the contamination left behind as these business facilities close. Until another way is found to deal with the abandoned and neglected sites in every corner of our state, these credits offer the one workable solution.

Historic Preservation tax credits have also served as a tool to help reinvigorate older developed areas in Michigan. As the finance and housing industries go through massive upheaval and change, we need to maintain programs that will allow older housing and commercial properties to remain in use. It is doubtful that the ready financing that we’ve enjoyed for the last few decades will be there to support new developments in the way it has in the past. It is vital that we keep our heritage buildings and housing during this transition period, as we move away from mortgage and finance programs that have been the base of our building projects in the past.

Similarly, I am in favor of extending the film and video credits for three more years, then beginning a phase-down in the program. In the short time the production credits have been in place, Michigan has seen an extremely rapid growth in this world-wide industry. Not only have over 3,000 full-time-equivalent jobs emerged (the equivalent to the number of jobs found in one to two auto plants), but business people from inside and outside Michigan have invested millions of dollars in new facilities based on the promise of continued support. Right now, most of the projects that have been produced in Michigan have come from outside companies. But, as this new industry takes root and grows, our own production companies will lead the way. We have to give this investment time to develop.

I believe that public transportation will play a larger role in the state as the cost and demand for fuel increases. I appreciate your support for light rail and other transit programs in Detroit, Grand Rapids, and other cities, and I support your efforts to gain further funds for high-speed rail routes in the state. Further, I encourage continued support for new energy industries, a field that will play increasing importance over the next decade.

Michigan’s business tax system needs to be simplified and reorganized. We should encourage entrepreneurial growth and incubate the start-ups that will fuel our economic growth. However, a blanket transfer of tax burden away from businesses at the expense of individuals is unfair and not good policy. Michigan’s current tax system causes many difficulties for business, to be sure, but our overall tax burden is not excessive—it is not even ranked in the top half of the most burdensome in the country. I believe that claims that the tax burden in Michigan is excessive are incorrect, or at worst, blatantly false.

I do believe that there are many reasons other than financial concerns that should drive decisions on these and many other issues, including quality of life and cultural concerns. However, I realize that the urgent pressures arising from the current deep recession and the massive effects they have had on Michigan make it important to deal with short-term budget issues very quickly. There are certainly many long-term questions that need to be addressed after these current emergencies are solved. I hope you choose to maintain the programs that I feel are so very important to Michigan.

Sincerely,

David A. Legg

Active Transportation

This news story popped up today:

New research illustrates the health benefits of regular biking, walking or taking public transportation to work, school or shopping. Researchers found a link between "active transportation" and less obesity in 17 industrialized countries across Europe, North America and Australia. "Countries with the highest levels of active transportation generally had the lowest obesity rates," authors David Bassett of the University of Tennessee and John Pucher of Rutgers University conclude. Americans, with the highest rate of obesity, were the least likely to walk, cycle or take mass transit, according to the study in a recent issue of the Journal of Physical Activity and Health. The study relied on each country's own travel and health data.

Only 12% use active transportation in the United States — 9% walk, 1% ride a bike and 2% take a bus or train — while a quarter to a third are obese, the study said.

By comparison, 67% of commuters in Latvia, 62% in Sweden and 52% in the Netherlands either walk, bike or use mass transit. Latvia's obesity rate is 14%, the Netherlands' is 11% and Sweden's is 9%.

This seems to be common sense... but someone has to "prove" every little fact when it is used to create policy, or the opposition will cry, "not true!"

Detroit Automobiles

I'm not a car nut, but like any American, I enjoy the cars I drive. The Detroit Free Press printed a good short article today shooting down some myths about American cars and the Big 3. It goes to prove that the mistakes the companies made decades ago still haunt them today, even though the problems they used to have are long past. Memories are hard to overcome.

http://www.freep.com/article/20081117/COL14/811170379/?imw=Y

Also, I got a chance to to see a 2010 Camero a few days ago here in the neighborhood. Holy Cow!

Mystery solved! I always wondered what the deal was with that strange interchange on I-94 (Ford Freeway) at Woodward in Detroit. Eastbound, for instance, you go under Woodward, then shoot off on a bit of a siding, which continues east, but to exit, you go onto John R Street and circle back to Woodward. What were they thinking when they built that?

Well, this article and picture answer the question. There were originally stairs leading down from Woodward to the freeway, where pedestrians could link to a planned rapid bus system that was supposed to run on the expressways. Check it out here.

So the idea was that the rapid busses would pull off of the freeway onto the siding, pick up passengers, then re-enter the highway. That would make too much sense. It never happened. Somewhere along the way the stairs disappeared, and we were just left with a crazy interchange. That sounds like the downtown People Mover, which was designed to be the end section of a rapid rail system that ran out the spoke avenues from downtown. The rail system was never built, so the PM is left to circle endlessly, shuttling people around downtown in its counter-clockwise circuit. I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

Here are some thoughts on sustainability, adapted from a posting I made on the Discuss Detroit board.

The idea is that society, or a business, or an industry, is founded and operated on a set of beliefs and understandings, which are translated into rules, regulations, or policies. As long as the rules are working and successful, there is growth and more success. At some point, sometimes, the environment changes and the rules don't fit the reality so well. Operating with the old set of rules doesn't work so successfully any more. If we're lucky, the only result is less success, but the system still operates. Sometimes, though, as time goes on, the gap between the environment and the rules widens, and there can develop a strong downside to operating under the old rules-- so much so that the society or industry causes so much damage that the whole thing implodes or falls apart. The system can't sustain itself anymore, because the old rules don't work any more. Let's take gasoline prices and the effect that will have on our society (even beyond Detroit). Take a look at this chart: http://inflationdata.com/Infla tion/images/charts/Oil/Gasolin e_inflation_chart.htm I know, it's only one chart, but I've seen others that say basically the same thing. Google around and look at some others. The charts say that gas is expensive in adjusted dollars, but no more than was the case at the beginning of the auto boom years, the years when Detroit boomed, too. And during the auto industry's second boom, in the 1950's, gasoline was significantly more expensive than during the 1990's. In fact, we nostalgically see the 1920's and the 1950's a golden years of the automobile. There were two really unusual periods on that chart-- 1980-82, and the '90's. We survived the high prices of 1980, but the '90's cheap prices caused what I think is the biggest difference between now and the '50's. The spike in the 1980's caused people to buy smaller, more efficient cars, the drop in the '90's allowed people to buy bigger less efficient cars, but also to move farther away from any destination and drive many more miles each week. Up until this past year, gasoline had risen to roughly the price it was post-WWII, and people didn't give up their gas-guzzlers back then. The big difference? They didn't drive as many miles. Farmers, yes. Urbanites and suburbanites? Much less. So how do the "rules" work here? The federal government and the state have plenty of laws and regulations that actively support sprawl, from how mortgage money is used to where roads are built to where water and sewer lines are built... right down to zoning ordinances that require quarter-acre lots or larger. (Remember the "super sewer" lawsuits in the '80's? There would be no development west of Novi Rd. if that case had been decided differently.) Even the media get into the act: I read somewhere that Better Homes & Gardens magazine began pushing suburban-style design in the early 1940's. What fuels this? Cheap gasoline and private cars. Are people going to give them up? No. I'm not, either. Can people continue to drive 50 miles each way to work? Depends. If this peak in gas prices is temporary, like 1980, then we'll get through it. Will prices drop to the super-low levels of the 1990's? Probably not. The chart says those were unusually low prices. If those low prices are what drove the sprawl out to the exurbs, then the exurbs are probably not sustainable. The rules of the 1990's fall apart. Books like "The End of Oil," whether you buy it or not, warn that at the very least, oil prices will be very volatile and spike wildly for the next two decades. At worst, they will spiral up and up with no end in sight. Look at this chart: http://www.randomuseless.info/ gasprice/gasprice.html For the last three years, the graph swings wildly up and down... big jumps with big drops. The cycles lasted about a year, but this last peak looks like a six-month cycle, with a super-high maximum. Will prices drop soon? Maybe, but in the long run, the trend is always up, at least since 1997. That's an 11-year trend. I think "up" is the trend from now on. A lot of factors have contributed to this. It is not the stupidity of the US auto industry. It is not the War in Iraq (1997 was four years before 9/11). It's not even George W. Bush. Nor was it Bill Clinton. He's been out of office a long time. It is our reliance on rules that are not sustainable. If we're smart, we'll change the policies that support those unworkable rules, and quit throwing our money away, money that supports big boxes and miles of infrastructure in places that will show zero growth very soon.

Transit again

In a recent podcast of the Smart City radio program, a researcher from the National Housing Institute, Alan Mallach, discussed a new report he recently published on the factors that help revitalize neighborhoods. The way it is done, he says, is to increase the demand for housing, and that is accomplished by adding or changing neighborhood features that make it desirable. The number one factor: adding a light rail station. This feature will change a neighborhood more quickly than anything else. He cited two examples, such as the increase in development that has happened in East Los Angeles after they announced a new light rail line to the area. Transit is part of neighborhood amenities, one of six factors that affect the housing market. The entire report is available in .pdf format here.