Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Which cities have the most millionaires? Detroit = #8, up 12% in 2010.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 03:30 AM
Original message
Which cities have the most millionaires? Detroit = #8, up 12% in 2010.
Edited on Sun Dec-12-10 03:33 AM by Hannah Bell
You know, the city that's so terribly, terribly poor it's going to shut off water to 1/3 of the city?

I wonder if the water's going to be shut off in the millionaires' neighborhoods?





Interestingly, the index shows that despite the recession, the number of HNWIs in the ten cities that have the most of them increased by 17.5 percent from 2008 to 2009, the highest growth rate in the last four years. The number of HNWIs in New York City grew by 18.7 percent during that time.

The numbers below show the HNWI population in the five U.S. cities that have the most of them, as well as the percent by which each city's number of millionaires increased between 2008 and 2009.

2010 U.S. Metro Wealth Index

New York: 667,200 (+18.7%)
Los Angeles: 235,800 (+13.3%)
Chicago: 198,100 (+15.1%)
Washington, D.C.: 152,400 (+19.3%)
San Francisco: 138,300 (+14.5%)
Philadelphia: 104,100 (+20.1%)
Boston: 102,300 (+14.4%)
Detroit: 89,100 (+12.1%)
Houston: 88,200 (+28.9%)
San Jose: 86,500 (+24.5%)

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/which-us-cities-hav... /


* "millionaire" = a million or more in liquid investable assets, excludes retirement funds
Refresh | +8 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 05:33 AM
Response to Original message
1. Dishonesty alert from this source
They are conflating Detroit with the Detroit Metro Area. In other words, they are being intentionally dishonest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Gaedel Donating Member (802 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 05:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Detroit Metro Area
Includes such posh suburbs as the various Grosse Pointes and the Bloomfield Hills area. Still plenty of money there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 05:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. who cares? it's an amazing amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of less than
100,000 people, about 23,000 for each of the 4 million people living in the metro area.

where the PTB are making plans to kill people.

and that's assuming they each have a single million.

and that's just their liquid, "investable" assets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 05:56 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Do you care that your sources are telling blatant lies?
"You know, the city that's so terribly, terribly poor it's going to shut off water to 1/3 of the city?"
Don't let their obvious lies stop you from bemoaning the suffering of 900,000 people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 06:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. you'd better read the article again. they clearly state: metro
The fact is that Detroit has income, Detroit has wealth, Detroit is the headquarters for at least two major corporations, the Detroit metro area has even more wealth, and Detroit is planning to cut off basic services like water to a third of the city with no recompense to homeowners that will allow them to buy another home.

And it will kill people.

And if you think that's OK, I don't think there's anything else to talk about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. You better read the article again. They are obviously conflating Metro areas and cities
The Title:"Which US Cities Have the Most Millionaires?"
From the body of the text:
"Boasting the highest number of millionaires of any U.S. city, New York City should perhaps change its nickname from "The Big Apple" to "The Golden Apple.""
"According to the numbers, New York City continues to top the index and has more high net worth individuals than the next top three cities Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington, D.C. combined"
"Interestingly, the index shows that despite the recession, the number of HNWIs in the ten cities that have the most of them increased by 17.5 percent from 2008 to 2009, the highest growth rate in the last four years."
"The number of HNWIs in New York City grew by 18.7 percent during that time."
"How did the Empire City manage to have such a millionaire boom in the midst of these dreary economic conditions?"
"The numbers below show the HNWI population in the five U.S. cities that have the most of them, as well as the percent by which each city's number of millionaires increased between 2008 and 2009."


The problem is that 1/3 or more of Detroit is already abandoned. Come to Detroit and see for yourself. There is an abandoned area as big as some cities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. 'The New York metropolitan area has...'
Edited on Sun Dec-12-10 06:27 AM by Hannah Bell
or people with $1 million or more in investible assets (which excludes their primary residence, collectibles, consumables and consumer durables), according to the 2010 Metro Wealth Index. The index, constructed by the Paris-based consulting firm Capgemini, annually tracks affluent households in hundreds of cities nationwide."


Detroit is not "abandoned". Abandoned means there's no one there.

It's the biggest city in Michigan, the 11th-biggest city in the country, with at least two of the world's largest corporations headquartered there, & a per-capita income of about $15K.

Other cities with the same per capita income are *not* cutting off water to 1/3 of the city.

The city fathers have decided it's ok to kill poor people to further their plans, and the middle & upper classes there apparently applaud that.

And we've already established that even if only 22% of those millionaires live in the city or own property there, a 1.5% tax on their liquid assets would pay off Detroit's entire deficit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. You must not be from around here
How many of those cities used to be twice as big as they are now? None, so your comparison is without merit.

"Detroit is not "abandoned". Abandoned means there's no one there"
Duh, if you had even gone to Detroit you would understand. There is already an ABANDONED area. 1/3 of the people are not going to lose services, 1/3 of the landmass is. The 1/3 of the land mass that is already mostly abandoned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 06:44 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. 1/3 of the city is going to lose services. You don't know how many people that will be.
You don't know, because Bing is keeping it secret.

If it were just empty areas, he wouldn't be keeping it secret.

I've walked through Detroit via google maps & i know people there, so maybe i have a better idea than you think.

Birmingham Alabama has a larger area than detroit, fewer people, and about the same per capita income. and it has lost population -- about 1/3 of its population since the 60s.

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/06/is_birminghams_popu... .

and despite the fact that it's a southern city, they've not yet cut off basic services to 1/3 of the city.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. In ten years Birmingham has lost 12,000 people
Detroit population drop during the same period: 60,000
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/us/21detroit.html?_r=...

It is just a whole different ballgame.

Total loss from Peak to today:
Birmingham-Approximately 110,000
Detroit-Approximately 1,000,000
Detroit has lost 4 times the current Birmingham population in 60 years. Put a little perspective on the relative size difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. They lost 1/3 of their population in the same period Detroit did. In a larger area.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #29
34. They lost less than one quarter the number of people that Detroit did
Edited on Mon Dec-13-10 12:57 AM by Taitertots
Relative percentage is meaningless. Detroit has lost four times the population of Birmingham in 60 years. Total volume lost is what matters and Birmingham lost next to nothing compared to Detroit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. relative percent is anything but meaningless, because the supposed point is that
infrastructure used to be provided for a density of X, but it's been reduced to X-30%.

the number of people is irrelevant; it's about relative density.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. Economies of Scale
Relative size change is meaningless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. maybe you'd better check out the definition of "economy of scale".
Detroit lost most of its lost population before 1980.

You're just mouthing propaganda you read somewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. Diseconomies of scale, I forgot to put "dis" at the beginning n/t
The concept is economics of scale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #40
41. you'd better look that up too. you seem not to understand the concept at all.
Edited on Mon Dec-13-10 01:53 AM by Hannah Bell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomy_of_scale

I repeat, Detroit lost 88% of its population between 1950 & 1980. No comment on *that* factoid?

I repeat, you seem to think it's OK to force people out of their homes by denying them basic city services like water. No comment?

This kind of seige operation to clear people off land other people want, or want cleared, has occurred many times. The PTB *always* have some plausible reason it's "necessary".

It has NEVER been necessary. And if you live in a Detroit neighborhood or suburb, you'd better believe, the same thing may be coming your way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Burn baby burn: Fire service cuts as a tool of urban renewal & 'planned shrinkage', 1975 & today

One of the interesting things that came up in the Wallace analysis was the interest of developers in land in the Bronx, the fact that the West Bronx was "middle-class" when Chief Kirby's report was written but quickly became low-income & fire-prone because it lay in the path of contagion that spread from the Central South Bronx when fire service was cut -- and that the new Yankee Stadium was built in the Southwest Bronx.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #41
43. I know exactly what it means and it absolutely applies to the situation
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. a quick check shows you do not. economies or diseconomies of scale have nothing to
do with condensing customers into a geographically small area.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 02:26 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. You are wrong
It absolutely applies to the situation. Maybe if you understood the concept outside what wikipedia/first google page has to say about it then you would see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #46
48. because you say so? lol.
Edited on Mon Dec-13-10 02:45 AM by Hannah Bell
The "savings" gained from this murderous policy = the marginal cost for driving 12 miles as opposed to 10 to answer a fire or police call & the marginal cost of maintaining water & sewer lines over an area of approximately 40 square miles, i.e. an area about 6 miles by 6 miles.

The first is negligible.

The second is laughable, since Bing's plans include giving the land to, e.g. an "urban farm" and other businesses.

For which the city will resume water and sewer services.

The reason for turning them off now is to force people off their property.


And as we have already established that 88% of Detroit's population loss occurred before 1980, and that the estimated 20,000 millionaires living or owning property in Detroit could pay off its entire deficit with a 1.5% tax, it's clear that the whole rationalization for this murderous policy is bullshit. Including the bullshit of economies & diseconomies of scale.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #48
51. The marginal cost of water, sewer, and electrical is not only a function of area
It is a function of the number of homes that require those services. You are pretending that the costs for one house is the same as the cost for 100 houses in the same area. When half the 100 houses are empty, the cost doesn't just dive back down.
You are also pretending that bringing services to the 1,000,000th person cost the same as bringing services to the 100,000th person. This is why your comparisons to other cities are false.

Rich people should be taxed more. That isn't going to be a panacea that saves Detroit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 03:41 AM
Response to Reply #51
52. the number of the cost for maintenance of a given amount of already-existing line is the same no
Edited on Mon Dec-13-10 03:56 AM by Hannah Bell
matter how many homes are in the area -- less if there are fewer homes, actually, because less usage.

The lines already exist.

And will require maintenance even if NO ONE USES THEM, because the city doesn't plan to let the area go back to wilderness, but bring in NEW USERS WHO WILL WANT WATER & SEWER.

Detroit's budget deficit = $300 million.

Detroit spends $1.35 million a year on -- security for Dave Bing.

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/11/rep... .

Do you think that's more, or less, than the yearly cost of maintaining water & sewer lines over a 6 mile x six mile area?

One of the areas to likely be cut off is the depopulated area around the coleman young airport.

But do you think they're going to cut off water & sewer to the airport? No, they are not. Because it's used for cargo & private planes and is an international port of entry.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KDET

Do you think it's a different set of lines there, totally dedicated to the airport and not connected to lines that serve the area around the airport?

Doubtful.

And if you look at the neighborhoods & logistics, you begin to see that shutting off service to most areas has similar issues.






Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 05:03 AM
Response to Reply #52
54. They require maintenance if no one uses them, you are correct
That is the problem. After people moved out they didn't uproot the water lines and tear down the electrical grid. They didn't rebuild everything to accommodate half the people.

Solving the deficit doesn't solve the problem. If anything it becomes a band-aid on a bullet wound. The city is still overwhelmed with blighted abandoned houses. The problem ISN'T the deficit, it is the huge abandoned area.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 06:41 AM
Response to Reply #54
55. no, the problem is the deficit. if the houses are blighted & abandoned, they can tear them down.
they don't need anyone's permission.

but the places where they're talking about cutting services aren't neighborhoods composed only of blighted & abandoned properties. and a lot of the neighborhoods with high blight are in the core city, so cutting off services to them serves no purpose.

your argument only has any validity at all if the areas of cut service are on the outskirts of the city.

go to this link, take the little yellow man & put him on wisner street facing west. find the only two houses on that block. this is one of the areas they're talking about cutting off service to.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=8552+wisner+avenue+...


you walk around the city a bit & find the blighted, abandoned neighborhood that you think should have its water cut off.

in terms of density, the area around the airport is one of the less populated residential areas. it used to have a lot more houses; now it's fairly empty.

but people still live there, and not so many of their homes look "blighted".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #1
16. All of these include metro areas, even NYC. Most of the wealth in NYC is actually
in Westchester County, where the Clinton's live.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Exactly, they are conflating cities with urban areas
To make it seem like there are more wealthy people in cities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. right, no millionaires in nyc, they're all in westchester county.
Edited on Sun Dec-12-10 06:49 AM by Hannah Bell
no millionaires own property in nyc either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #19
25. There are pleny of millionaires in NYC, but many also reside in Westchester County .................
they own property in NYC, some even live full time in NYC, but many also live in outlying areas. Should the CEOs of major banking firms, investment firms, retail giants, owners of sports teams and stadiums who live in the surrounding areas but run their businesses from the city, not be included in the count?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Lions_fan Donating Member (122 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 05:34 AM
Response to Original message
2. Detroit has more millionaires than that
Count the off the books millionaires and we might have 100K :think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 05:59 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. If we assume even distribution of wealth in the metro area...
There are less than 26,000 in Detroit. Wealth is concentrated in the suburbs, so the real number is much lower.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 06:14 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Fine. Say there are 20,000 millionaires who own property in the city.
Edited on Sun Dec-12-10 06:16 AM by Hannah Bell
That seems safe, even if they don't *live* in the city. I actually read about one rich "investor" that owned some apparently "abandoned" properties in Detroit.

So, 20,000 people with a million each in liquid, "investable" assets. That's not residences, that's not pensions, savings bonds, etc.

That's 20 billion dollars if each of them has only 1 million.

Detroit's deficit is about $300 million.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UN...

That's 1.5% of that $20 billion.

No, it's not about "saving the city," it's about clearing people off land other people, rich people, want cleared.

It's about forcing them out using seige tactics, same as every other clearance of the poor that capital has ever done since its beginning.

Raw violence -- the same way capital ultimately makes all its wealth.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. If rich people wanted it they could have bought it for pennies on the dollar
They can't give the property away. There is already a whole city sized area abandoned in Detroit.


Taxes on rich people should be higher. You won't hear me argue about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. you think it's "abandoned". This looks "abandoned," doesn't it?
Edited on Sun Dec-12-10 06:32 AM by Hannah Bell



But in fact, it's owned by a very wealthy man, a property developer who owns a huge chunk of North St. Louis.

The developer in question was Paul McKee Jr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_McKee_ (developer)


He started buying N. St. Louis properties in 2003, using a variety of front companies to maintain anonymity. Once purchased, any tenants were evicted & the buildings were left unsecured & unmaintained -- which had the effect of inviting crime, vandalism & further decline in surrounding property values. And in more than a few cases, the buildings had started out structurally sound & fairly well-maintained.

"The purchases began in 2003 and continue to this day. Many of these holdings are adjacent to city-owned real estate or in the path of infrastructure projects...




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #13
21. There are thousands of houses that won't sell for $500
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/10/det...

over 7000 properties in Detroit couldn't sell for next to nothing.

A don't really see the problem in Detroit being caused by real estate developers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. two decades ago
when I worked with the Detroit Public schools, there were - on average - three abandoned homes per each city block in the city. That was certainly not caused by real estate developers.

The rapid and long-term deterioration in Detroit, imo, a harbinger that we excuse away at our own peril.

Indeed parts of the midwestern city in which I currently live are beginning to look like Detroit in the early 90s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. It's produced by capital strike by the same class of people who buy up property & let it sit & rot
Edited on Sun Dec-12-10 02:23 PM by Hannah Bell
in order to destroy neighborhoods & cities.

And the same people who make decisions to withdraw public services to accelerate that process.

There's a long history of it & it's not pretty; it's murder.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. Very interesting material - lots to read and ponder.
thanks for the link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. One of the things Detroiters should read & ponder: The same process in NYC
Edited on Sun Dec-12-10 07:05 PM by Hannah Bell
led to the destruction of neighborhoods other than those originally targeted.

Some Detroiters seem OK with expropriating the poor so long as they just vanish. They won't be so OK when their own neighborhoods are subject to the same process.

"One of the interesting things that came up in the Wallace analysis was the interest of developers in land in the Bronx, the fact that the West Bronx was "middle-class" when Chief Kirby's report was written but quickly became low-income & fire-prone because it lay in the path of contagion that spread from the Central South Bronx when fire service was cut -- and that the new Yankee Stadium was built in the Southwest Bronx."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. same deal in st louis, & irrelevant to the point made,
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #27
35. It is not the same thing in St. Louis at all
St. Louis hasn't lost over a million people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #35
38. detroit's population peaked at 1.85 million in 1950. It's lost slightly under 1 million
since, per 2009 estimates. About 50% of its peak population.

EIGHTY-EIGHT PERCENT OF THAT LOSS OCCURRED BEFORE 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit


St. Louis' population also peaked in 1950, at 856K.

It has since lost a larger percent of its population than Detroit: 58%.

And again, about 88% of the loss occurred before 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Louis,_Missouri


According to you, because Detroit lost 88% of its population between 1950 & 1980, thirty years after that loss occurred it's necessary to cut off water & other basic services to 1/3 of the city.

It's complete garbage.

But I'll put you down as one who believes it's OK to shut basic services off to human beings & force them out of their own homes without paying them enough to buy a comparable home elsewhere.





Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #38
42. Find a city that is actually like Detroit instead of meaningless obfuscations
Why are you fixated on comparing Detroit to cities that are obviously not similar?

"But I'll put you down as one who believes it's OK to shut basic services off to human beings & force them out of their own homes without paying them enough to buy a comparable home elsewhere."
Good thing that isn't what is happening. They are taking areas that have been abandoned for decades and shutting off services to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #42
45. lol. since there's no city that's like detroit in every detail, you can continue to sing that tune.
Edited on Mon Dec-13-10 02:10 AM by Hannah Bell
but anyone with half a brain knows it's off-key.

If they were abandoned with no residents, services would already be shut off & no one would question it.

There are questions because people live there, and you know it. And in many cases those people are elderly homeowners.

The city is going to cut off their water, police & fire protection, & in some cases their heat -- as an "incentive" for them to leave their homes.

It generously offers to pay them "market value" for their homes, which is too low now to buy a comparable home & will be lower still, since there's no "market" for homes without water that the city plans to bulldoze & burn.

So in fact, you are indeed acting as an apologist for this murderous policy, whether you'll cop to it or not.

Detroit is approximately 12 miles by 12 miles. There's no significant additional cost in responding to a police or fire call 10 miles away as opposed to 12. There is no significant extra cost in providing water to a home 10 miles away as opposed to 12.

It's bullshit propaganda used to justify expropriation & murder, and ethnic & class "cleansing".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. You know that no cities are comparable, why keep trotting out cities that you know are not?
"If they were abandoned with no residents, services would already be shut off & no one would question it."
You would think so, but you would be wrong. That is exactly what you are bemoaning them for wanting to do.

No one is ethnic cleansing anyone. They are being given enough to relocate into the populated areas of Detroit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 02:48 AM
Response to Reply #47
49. I've cited extensive data about cities that are comparable. You demand they be EXACTLY comparable.
Edited on Mon Dec-13-10 02:50 AM by Hannah Bell
Nothing is EXACTLY comparable to anything.

No, they are NOT being given enough.

It's not even been established that they'll be given ANYTHING.

But what's very clear from all discussions so far is that the ONLY thing mentioned is "MARKET VALUE" IF they own the home they're forced out of.

NOT moving expenses, not enough to buy a comparable home.

And ethnic & class cleansing is precisely what is going on, & there's a long, dirty history of same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 03:09 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. You have cherry picked cities that are not like Detroit
They are only remotely similar in one aspect while being different in so many that comparison is meaningless. Those cities are simply not in the same situation as Detroit.

"not enough to buy a comparable home."
Comparable home, yes they certainly would. Much nicer home in the suburbs, obviously not. They will certainly be able to move to the areas of Detroit that remain occupied.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-13-10 04:46 AM
Response to Reply #50
53. no, the market value for a home in a depopulated area is not the same as the
Edited on Mon Dec-13-10 04:53 AM by Hannah Bell
value of a home "in the areas that are occupied".

home prieces in detroit vary widely depending on the neighborhood.

$335K
http://www.prusnyder.com/homes/MI/DETROIT/48214/626_LOD...

$100K
http://www.trulia.com/property/3034669918-760-Lemay-St-...


at the bottom of this page: 5 houses that last sold for around $30K
http://www.trulia.com/property/compare/3035481685-19960...


The median asking price for a detroit home as of december 6th = $89K.

The price at the 25th percentile (the cut-off for the cheapest 25% of homes = $43K)

http://www.housingtracker.net/asking-prices/detroit-mic... /

Even assuming that they only get half that, that range = 22K to 45K.

If there were only 300 homeowners in the area where they shut off services, & they paid them all a minimal $22K (which appears to be a minimum price for something you could actually move into & live in without major work), that would be NEARLY 7 MILLION DOLLARS.

BULLSHIT if they're going to pay anything near that.

I went through the depopulated areas around the airport on google street view. Some of the homes are very well kept up, with flowers & gardens & mowed lawns.

Obviously homeowners, and possibly depopulated neighborhoods are safer in some ways than ones populated by drug dealers.

They're not going to get anything comparable.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #21
30. There are thousands of similar properties in St Louis.
Edited on Sun Dec-12-10 02:46 PM by Hannah Bell
I didn't say the problem was "caused" by property developers. I said what looks abandoned isn't necessarily.

You should know that derelict properties = tax write-offs for the rich.

#

Detroit to Packard Plant owners: Destroy or secure your dangerous property



In the suit, Bioresource claimed to be the property's owner and listed local land speculator Romel Casab as president.

"The City of Detroit has had a long history of litigation with Bioresource Inc. over the ownership of this land and the condition of the structures on the property," Detroit Buildings & Safety Engineering Director Karla Henderson told The Associated Press on Thursday. "Now that it is clear and publicly acknowledged who the responsible party is, we will pursue all applicable areas of enforcement to hold the property owner accountable for this unsightly and dangerous situation."

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/07/act...

Supposedly, the plant is currently owned by a company under the name of Biosource, Inc, and the only person on that company's books is Dominic Cristini. Cristini is currently serving a prison term in California on drug charges...But things got a little clearer recently when Biosource sued Detroit's 555 Nonprofit Studio and Gallery. The name on the lawsuit wasn't Cristini's. Instead, one Romel Casab was behind the move...

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/07/10/detroit-still-huntin... /


The City of Detroit has failed for nearly four years to send property tax bills to the owner of the Packard plant, costing the city badly needed cash....the plant is by far the largest derelict property in Detroit.

Last week, less than 18 hours after a reporter questioned why the property was listed as city-owned, the assessor's office changed its status to "taxable." The property's assessed value ballooned from almost nothing to nearly $1.6 million.

This is the second embarrassing property tax snafu for the assessor's office, which adjusted City Councilwoman JoAnn Watson's tax bill from $68 to $2,127 a year only after the Free Press discovered the error in 2009.


Read more: Detroit botched Packard plant tax collection | freep.com | Detroit Free Press http://www.freep.com/article/20101112/NEWS01/11120415/D...


#

Elites have a plan for Detroit. They think it's OK to dispossess & kill people to achieve their goals.

Does that surprise you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. k
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
blueamy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 06:19 AM
Response to Original message
10. drug dealers
that is all
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. You're saying that only drug dealers will have their water cut off?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NoPasaran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
22. You'd think with all the millionaires in Houston
They'd do something about the humidity
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
24. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
blueoutkast Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-12-10 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
26. I am surprised not to see Miami on the list
I always had the impression that a lot of millionaires lived in Miami.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 29th 2014, 11:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC