Quote:
Originally Posted by AccraGhana
Detroit is and will continue to rebound the same way it declined, which is one decision at a time, one business at a time, one household at a time, born from increased confidence in a particular section of the city, if not the city as a whole.
Just as decay spreads from a nucleus…..growth can and will. What is going on right now is not much when you look at the size of the city, but it is very crucial because it’s the inertia breaking phase that will eventually lead to momentum that will generate a critical mass of investment to come.
|
I think it's a bit pernicious to expect virtuous individuals acting alone or in small groups, to revitalize even a part of Detroit on their own efforts. Typically, these individuals are not able to tap the resources needed (financial, expertise, etc) to effect large change in downturned cities like Detroit, besides on the very localized level. It's a particularly American belief that individuals like those profiled in the video can make a major difference, but this belief rarely accords with reality. Whereas if you get the government and the large-scale private sector involved (with billions of dollars on balance sheet and revenues), change at a larger scale and in a faster timeframe is possible.
Entites with 3CDC in Cincinnati (a coalition of local businesses working successfully to improve OTR and downtown) show how effective a government-corporate partnership can be - imagine would could be achieved with a larger base of participant companies, and the federal and state governments (and financiers/lenders).
It also seems to me that having more actual residents would solve or pre-empt a lot of the problems. Residents need services, which small businesses would come to supply. Currently, Detroit is losing residents, due to continued fears of crime and better quality of life in the detroit suburbs. Thus the lack of small businesses.
...and the best way to add more residents, would be to break up the city. why?
(1) perception: new cities would not have the stigma of Detroit. school districts would be separated, city governments would separated, etc., allowing income and class-based distinctions to emerge (which exist in every city).
(2) efficiency: decisions in the local cities would be made faster and more efficiently than in today's Detroit.
(3) varying needs better met: one city might consist of largely abandoned properties (and in the process of rebuilding as I described above). Another might be a stable middle class area. City policy would not have to conform to a broad set of requirements, as today, making rebuilding easier.