politicians archive at The Motor(less) City

Archive for the 'politicians' Category

Detroit to get mass transit?

Published April 22nd, 2008 in abandoned, decay, moving, news, light rail, public transportation, urban, photos, Michigan, Detroit, urban living, politics, photography, politicians and Uncategorized. 0 Comments

I have to admit, I got a little excited when this Model D newsletter appeared in my inbox. I’ve written letters, made calls, and hoped for years that the dream of a reliable, user friendly, form of mass transit would arrive in Metro Detroit. Of course I was always told the standard line, “Detroit’s the Motor City…we’ll never get mass transit.” And of course L. Brooks Patterson once said on Michigan Public Radio, “we can’t afford to spend a dime on an experiment like mass transit…” Never mind that this “experiment” has been successful all over the globe, and most desirable and economically prosperous metropolitan areas have some form of this “experiment” also known as mass transit.

I’ve followed the debates, and the ups and downs of possible mass transit in Metro Detroit for more than ten years now. Now that the Michigan and Metro Detroit mass exodus of highly educated, motivated, and entrepreneurial people has hit a peek of sorts, and gas is expected to hit $4 per gallon, more Metro Detroiters than ever are asking why a mass transit system doesn’t exist.

Of course many people in the area would never step foot on public transportation in Metro Detroit, and would rather move than have their tax dollars support such a thing. I’ve had acquaintances tell me, “I’d never ride on public transportation here. Who would?” Of course when I was young, some people were afraid the criminal element may use mass transit to escape from the inner-city, come out to the safe haven of the suburbs, and still their refrigerators. Criminals apparently could steal refrigerators, but not cars…

So now here we are in an enlightened time in Metro Detroit. We’re ready for a regional mass transit system. Right? Ok, maybe not. It’s Kwame after all. Remember the police station in the abandoned train station plan? Is this just another “plan” that actually has less than a snowball’s chance in Hell? Time will tell. One problem may be the need for local dollars. The “plan” calls for a light rail system from downtown to the State Fair Grounds. Which of the two communities in which the light rail will pass through have any money. Neither Highland Park, nor Detroit has enough money for schools, libraries, or basic public services. The other problem is getting any other community on board. After all, it’s not going to be successful if it’s just a line from downtown to the State Fair Grounds. A successful plan has to include the communities to the north such as, Ferndale, Royal Oak, and Birmingham. Of those three the most likely to commit to such a plan would be Ferndale. Regional agreements have never been Metro Detroit’s strong suit.

Even if all does work as planned, it’s stated in the article that nothing would happen in this decade anyway. And anything beyond Detroit hasn’t even been discussed. So Metro Detroit is once again going to fail to become relevant anytime in the near future.

Megan Owens, executive director of Transportation Riders United, states “It’s better that they take it slow and do it right,” Owens says. “The worst thing we could do is spend a bunch of money to do it quickly and build a bad system.” Unfortunately Detroit doesn’t have time. It’s already too late to the party. In fact the party’s pretty much over. Detroit needs something, and they need it yesterday.

Picking on Detroit?

Published April 15th, 2008 in moving, decay, industrial, urban, industry, real estate, news, recession, housing, photos, photography, poverty, urban living, rants, Michigan, white flight, politics, economy, jobs, politicians and Detroit. 0 Comments

I’m occasionally accused of only pointing out Detroit’s flaws. It’s mostly true. I do have a “glass is half full” kind of attitude about Detroit. Actually my attitude is more of a “glass is empty” sort of attitude. But this isn’t elementary school. I’m not a bully, and Detroit’s not a little school child. I’m one person pointing out why droves of the most desirable people are leaving Detroit. And I do point out what I think needs to change. Detroit can take it.
And I’m not alone. Lately Detroit’s daily paper’s have taken up the cause as well.

The Free Press is reporting about the Nation’s cities, and what needs to change in order to keep them safe, vibrant, and economically viable. While this series does not focus solely on Detroit, it does point out what Detroit faces, and what it needs to do in order to recover from the depths it’s reached.

The News is reporting about the horrible state of the Detroit Public Schools, and right or wrong, presenting a way to fix it.

The Free Press compares Detroit and Pittsburgh. Detroiters often defend Detroit, pointing out how it’s so different from other cities. Of course it’s not that different. And the solutions aren’t that different either.

And here’s something I’ve mentioned and complained about before. Some idiots still refuse to get with the times. Banning smoking, in public spaces, is within State’s rights of protecting public health, and does not ruin local economies.

An article in the Free Press about how Detroit’s biggest problem is providing basic services to it’s residents.

A Free Press article about Michigan’s over supply of homes.

The area still can’t get it’s act together on the convention center (goodbye Auto Show?).

Some will say that all this misses the good things happening in the area. That may be the case, but reporting about the lipstick on a pig, doesn’t prevent anyone from recognizing that it’s still a pig. Detroit and the Metro Area, won’t get better until a majority of the residents look in the mirror and realize the area’s failings, of which there are way too many.

Michigan’s foreclosure problem

Published April 9th, 2008 in decay, urban, abandoned, real estate, recession, housing, photos, photography, poverty, Michigan, politics, politicians, economy, jobs and Detroit. 0 Comments

Michigan’s foreclosure problem, like in so many other states, is huge. And like with so many other issues no one seems to be able to agree on any possible solutions. The primary question seems to be, who do we bail out? Why do we have to bail anyone out? Because, number one, spending our money is what the government does when there’s a problem. We should all know that by now. Secondly, and more importantly though, bail out or no bail out, we’ll all pay one way or another.

Let’s look at the root of the problem first. Lenders lent too much too easily to too many people. Borrowers borrowed too much, with too little down, and without the means to pay it back. Investors bought these bad loans, without due diligence. Builders built too much, speculators speculated too much, and our entire economy became too reliant on this house of cards. Everyone thought the party would never end. Everyone either fed into, or bought into (o.k., I didn’t, but it seems everyone else did) the idea that housing prices could not go down.

Several years ago, I was told by an employee of a developer, who was then developing housing out in the middle of nowhere, outside of, Metro Detroit that there was no end to the demand. When I asked were everyone was coming from (knowing that Michigan, at the time, had one of the lowest rates of population growth), she replied, “they’re coming from older, closer in suburbs.” As if that could go on indefinitely. Who was buying their houses? Eventually, you need a growing population to fulfill the needs of a growing stock of housing developments. Without it, it’s unsustainable. An unrealistic, and decidedly Pollyannaish, view of the market, combined with a bad economy created Michigan’s housing disaster. Of course the market’s crashing everywhere, not just in Michigan. In other places the speculation got out of hand, prices were driven up to unaffordable rates, and people were sold, or bought (depends on your perspective) bad mortgages. Different cause, same result.

Nobody wants to bail out those who made foolish decisions, but it seems all parties involved made poor decisions. If I am a lender, and lend my money to too many, who, with bad credit, and meager income, have little realistic chance of paying back, I’m at fault, and I deserve to lose that money. Even more so if I’ve convinced borrowers, and purchasers of the loans I make, that it’s a good deal, there’s nothing, to worry about, and we’re all going to get rich doing it.

If I’m a borrower, and I borrow an amount I can’t afford, with the crazy assumption that the 25% annual gains will continue, and I’ll refinance my way out of my negative amortization loan, then I deserve to lose my house.

If I’m an investor, and I foolishly invest money in SIVs, without investigating them first, I deserve to lose my money.

If I’m a developer, and I develop in a community with high vacancy rates, an unstable economy, more housing units than residents, or other obvious signs of trouble, and I fail to head the warnings, I deserve to lose my money.

Unfortunately, we don’t just have one of these groups in trouble, we have all of them in trouble. And when they are all in trouble, we are all in trouble. So the question, is, as was asked at the top, who do we bail out. Right now the politicians are working on various bills for each of these groups, and of course we’ve already bailed out Bear Sterns. Just wait there’s more to come.

This is where the blame game starts. If you fit into one of the above categories, it’s not your fault. It’s the fault of parties in the other groups. Which ever group has the most money, and the best lobbyists wins (gets the bail out).

I don’t know what the answer is, I only know there’s going to be pain, and lots of it. One thing we do need, is to keep as many people in their houses as possible. I know that I don’t want vacant houses around my neighborhood. High numbers of vacant houses do no one any good. So why is it there is so much reporting about lending banks not responding to borrowers who are in over their heads? Why are so many houses being foreclosed on? What do the banks think they’re going to get for vacant, often vandalized homes in, largely, vacant areas of our nation’s cities? Who in their right mind is going to buy a house in an urban area of Detroit, in a market with declining values, when the houses around you look like this:

We shouldn’t cut off our noses, to spite our faces. Forcing people out of their houses because they made bad choices only works if it’s just a few people. When the number about to lose their houses becomes large enough, it’s not just their problem anymore, it becomes our problem.

Am I a cynic?

Published March 28th, 2008 in photos, photography, urban, industrial, industry, decay, big three, economy, rants, Michigan, poverty, politics, jobs, politicians and Detroit. 0 Comments

Am I a cynic, or am I a realist? Maybe I’m both. Yesterday, shortly after posting my, admittedly, rant filled proclamation of how I’d left Metro Detroit, I got a comment stating that I was contributing to the exact thing I detested about the area. I claimed that “Metro Detroit area is a black hole of despair and self-pity, and full of people who refuse to acknowledge, or can’t see, the basic problems…” I think the main point I wanted to make was that people refuse to acknowledge the underlying problems. It’s not that Detroit sucks. It does. It’s not that Detroit’s dangerous. It is. It’s not that the city lacks basic services. It does. And it’s not that the area is almost entirely reliant on a dying industry. It is. It’s that no one wants to make the necessary changes. They want to go on with their lives as if the same old rules apply today that applied in Metro Detroit’s hey day.

The whole state needs to invest in the future. Michigan wants to provide money to companies to start up in Michigan, but they put a limit on what industries they can be in. Michigan needs to encourage any viable business to start up in Michigan. Michigan, and Metro Detroit in particular needs to realize they are in competition for the 18-35 demographics, with cities like Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., etc. If you are a highly educated 18-35 year old, looking for a great place to live, and begin, or develop your career or business, why would you choose Metro Detroit? There are very few reasons. One of the few reasons to head to, or stay in, Michigan is for the automotive industry. Unfortunately Michigan’s lock on the auto industry is slipping. Southern California’s quickly becoming the new car design center, and other states have a lower per worker cost than Michigan for manufacturing. With a global economy there are many fewer reasons to locate your automotive company in Michigan. Even the big three are seeing more growth outside our country than in. One less reason to expand in Michigan.

So what does Michigan do to invest in the future, and attract highly educated and highly skilled workers? Not much. Michigan spends more on prisons than on education. Which of these two things will help Michigan to prepare for the future? Maybe Michigan can become the “Prison State,” and house prisoners from around the country. That’s sure to attract the kind of people Michigan needs. I continue to hear on the street, and on t.v., and on the radio, calls from the citizens to their politicians, to bring a big corporation in to Michigan to save the day. It’s not going to happen. Why? Why go to Michigan, when the people you need for your big corporation to be competitive are leaving in droves? What Michigan needs to do is invest in, and encourage, entrepreneurial activity. Everyone likes to point to companies like Google, and say that we need to bring a company like that to Michigan. Of course not to long ago Google was a two person start up. Google not going to relocate to Michigan. They may bring a few thousand jobs, but that’s small consolation considering the enormous job losses Michigan has had in the past five years.

The second thing Michigan needs to do is invest in the quality of life. Yes, there are beautiful things and places in Michigan, but compare Metro Detroit to other major cities around the country. Detroit’s got an amazing asset in Belle Isle, but head out to Belle Isle on a week day evening and marvel at the burned out buildings, or the trash in the parking lots. Portland, Seattle, San Fransisco, Chicago, New York, and D.C., all have incredible public assets, that attract the kind of people that Michigan needs. Parks, museums, culture, and public transportation (Seattle’s just so, so) , are all things that are neglected in Michigan as being frivolous, non-essential, expenditures, when the reality is these are the things that the very people Michigan is losing, and failing to attract, want to have access to. It’s relatively easy to move around our country, and that makes all major metropolitan areas in competition for the same highly prized workers, entrepreneurs, and businesses.

Trying to attract a business to Michigan is no easy task. As I mentioned before, why would anyone relocate their business to Michigan? There are very few reasons to do so. Tax policies alone are usually not enough. Relocating a business can be very expensive, and many things must be taken into account when making the decision. Will your workers relocate as well? If not, does the area you’re looking at have enough of the workers you need? What’s the quality of life like where you are considering moving the business to? Business owners generally have to live in the area as well.

So, the question is, am I a cynic, a realist or both? I guess I’m both. I’m very realistic in my assessment of Metro Detroit. I’m also cynical about the chances of any kind of turn around any time soon. When politicians like L. Brooks Patterson make statements like, “I love sprawl. I need it. I promote it. Oakland County can’t get enough of it” or “we can’t afford to spend a dime on an experiment like mass transit…” it’s hard not to be. L Brooks Patterson also cut funding to Ferndale’s downtown (one of the few to make an incredible turn around in Michigan) because he didn’t like their position on his spending on roads and views on suburban sprawl. Suburban sprawl is questionable in good times, but now that the population is declining, and sprawl has been encouraged (and achieved), how is the infrastructure going to be maintained? How’s it going to be paid for? And by whom?

Long commutes, crumbling infrastructure, a lack of cultural resources, no mass transit, an over reliance on a single industry, and barely a plan in place to do anything about any of it. Sure there are plenty of individuals, and non-profit groups working to change things, but it takes real political might, and plenty of dollars to enact so much as a plan. Even an investigation into what Michigan needs (if it’s not obvious enough already) would be a start.

When the collective attitudes, and desires change, and the politicians of Michigan start to push for change, maybe things will change, and if it’s not to late, maybe some of us will come back.

Common sense prevails…

Published November 7th, 2007 in christians, berkley, intolerance, religion, angry people, rants, politics, politicians and Michigan. 0 Comments

Well, finally, for me at least, some good news. Common sense prevailed over stubborn and misplaced religious conviction or some kind of possibly damaging desire to remain firmly entrenched in the past. As has been reported fairly extensively in the local, and sometimes national and international, news, there has been a fight in Berkley over whether or not to amend the city’s charter to not only allow, but require a 4′ x 4′ minimum nativity scene on the city’s property.

Most people didn’t have a problem with the city’s holiday displays, however somebody did. They contacted the ACLU and together asked the city to remove the religious display, or possibly face a lawsuit. Now some people are going to complain that the ACLU is out to get conservatives or some other b.s., when in fact the ACLU has come to the aid of such, so called, conservative individuals as, Sen. Larry Craig, and none other than Rush Limbaugh. Of course it’s easy to bash someone who defends something you don’t like, but the truth is it’s very difficult to defend something you don’t like, such as individuals who trash talk your organization on the radio on a daily basis. The true testament to the ACLU, is that they will defend anyone’s civil liberties, regardless of political affiliation.

As much as the “Say yes to the nativity scene” folks would like this to be about the ACLU, it wasn’t. After the initial contact from a Berkley resident and the ACLU, the Berkley City Council implemented a plan, originally proposed by the clergy of a local Christian church, to move the nativity scene off of the City’s property, to a location two blocks away on Church property, where it would be displayed without various other Christmas decorations such as presents and Santa Claus, and other religion’s holiday decorations. The beauty of this plan was that those who think the nativity scene represents the true spirit of Christmas get to have a nativity scene unencumbered by distracting non-Christian decorative items, those who don’t believe that the government should be in the business of setting up religious displays at tax payer expense were happy, and the city wouldn’t get sued! Who loses? No one.

Of course someone has to rain on the parade. And that someone unfortunately was the Thomas Moore Law Center, who came into town with a faux citizen action group, claiming that they could tell Berkley citizen’s were upset that they were not going to have a nativity scene (lie number one), that there was an attack on Christian values underway (lie number two), and that the lawsuit would not cost the city of Berkley anything (lie number three).

Well the city didn’t agree. They liked the solution that was already in place. And a whole group of Berkley residents didn’t agree either and formed there own, truly grass roots action group. The group, unlike the “yes” group, did not have outside funding from a group like the Thomas Moore Law Center, was not in partnership with any outside groups, did not bring in citizen’s from other countries (yes, you heard it right, the “yes” group brought in citizen’s of Canada to help in their “cause”), did have all of the Berkley clergy on their side, and the support of all the area’s major newspapers. And after yesterday’s vote, apparently a majority of Berkley’s citizens.

The final result? 55% of voters voted against the charter amendment, and 45% voted for. Fox news made this sound like a close margin of victory, when in reality it was a margin of 10%, which is much higher than the margin of most presidential races.

So common sense prevailed over religious fervor. On election night one disappointed “yes” supporter stated that this was a case of intolerance of Christians. Hopefully she didn’t really believe it, but said it out of anger. This is, of course, not about tolerance or intolerance of the Christian religion. If she wanted to view it as any kind of intolerance, she would have to see that it would be closer to plain old religious intolerance. After all no religious items will be displayed by city hall during any holiday. No one singled out Christianity. It just so happened that the city was violating the first amendment by displaying only Christian holiday display. Of course the “yes” supporters offered to put in a Star of David. But would that do it? Who decides which religious group gets representation? Do the Wickens get a display? How about the Pagans? If the city decides, then that is a clear violation of the first amendment. Also, if this was indeed intolerance of Christians then who is to blame? After all it was a member of a Christian church that proposed the solution. Christian members of the city council supported it, and by the numbers, at least some Christians voted against the charter amendment. So I guess, if it is indeed intolerance of Christians, it was in part at least, carried out by Christians in the community. Do Christians not tolerate themselves?

Intolerance: unwillingness to recognize and respect differences in opinions or beliefs. This definition explains why if intolerance was shown, it was at least equally shown by those who had proposed or supported the charter amendment. Intolerance, and it’s antonym tolerance, works in more than one direction. Not being able to force a religious display to be paid for, and maintained by tax payer dollars, and displayed on tax payer property, does not constitute intolerance. Insisting that the public must support your religious display, is intolerance.

Fortunately, Berkley will not appear to outsiders (at least those with common sense) to be an intolerant community. We will, hopefully, be able to attract all kinds of people. And that we can’t afford not to do.

I’m sure you’ve all missed me…

Published October 15th, 2007 in angry people, religion, christians, berkley, politicians, politics, Michigan, rants, race and Detroit. 0 Comments

Wow, it’s been a whole month since my last post. How has everyone survived without my witty rhetoric? All one of you have survived just fine I’m sure.

So what’s going on? Well the big holiday tradition of arguing over nativity scenes has begun again. Apparently we’ve forgotten that the holiday’s are supposed to be about love, kindness, sharing, giving, and forgiveness. Instead we threaten each other, call each other names, and insist that our religious display on public property is our god given right. “That’s right, damn it! I can do what ever I want! It’s a free country…”

Here’s the arguments:

“It’s always been that way.” Umm, no it hasn’t…

“The constitution guarantees me the right to display a nativity scene on public property.” Umm, no it doesn’t… If you think it does, you’re going to have to point out where in the constitution that appears.

“This is what the founding father’s intended.” Umm, no it’s not… Remeber Thomas Jefferson, and that First Amendment thing…

“Nobody complained about it before.” Umm, not to you, and so what? We used to have slaves. A lot of people were perfectly happy with that set up. Things change. Stop being the “grumpy old man.”

“It’s an attack against Christianity.” Umm, no it’s not… nobody other than people at your church (maybe), cares about your religious beliefs. Nor should they. They’re your beliefs, and you have the right, just as everyone else has, to practice, or not practice what ever religious beliefs you have. That doesn’t mean that you get to tell the government what religion they should support.

Let’s take a look at the First Amendment, (specifically the Free Exercise Clause) for the benefit of those who’ve forgotten their history lessons.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. “

So, the first part is pretty clear: ” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” That means that laws, such as the charter amendment proposed in Berkley, Michigan, can’t be passed requiring the government to support certain religions. Requiring a “minimum, 4′ by 4′ nativity with proportional figures…” as the language of the proposal contains, would clearly violate the first part of the first amendment. Someone will point out that it says “Congress…”, meaning that it only applies to the Federal government, so of course I have to point to the 14th Amendment as well, which includes the Equal Protection Clause.

Now, of course, this is the part where the person supporting nativity scenes on public property says, “but it also says, ‘or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…’, so we should be allowed to display a nativity scene. They always say we, as if it’s everyone, which it’s not, but that’s not the point anyway. What is the point is that our protections in the constitution and it’s amendments protect individual liberties. That means that while you can practice your religion, you can’t force it on others (which would violate their civil liberties, and the first amendment) by creating laws requiring displays of your religious icons on public property.

I have a right to do with my property as I please, however, that right only goes so far as it doesn’t impinge on some one else’s right. Requiring a nativity scene, or any religious icons, on public property infringes on the individuals protection from the establishment of religion by government, however the removal of a nativity scene from public property in no way infringes on any individuals right to practice their own religion. In order for the government, or anyone else for that matter, to violate the clause, “…or prohibiting the free exercise there of…”, there would have to be a law restricting your ability to practice your religion or preventing you from worshiping as required by your religion. The moving of a nativity scene from city hall to a church, does neither of these things. You can still read the bible, pray, go to church, and celebrate all religious holidays. There is no “thinly veiled attack on Christian’s…” There is no burning of churches, bibles, or raiding of church services (at least not Christian ones). Christians are not beat up, jailed, or ridiculed. For crying out loud, the majority of American’s call themselves Christians. If Christian’s are being attacked, who’s doing it? Give me a break…

VW is leaving Detroit

Published September 6th, 2007 in angry people, jobs, economy, big three, losers, politicians, Michigan, rants, politics and Detroit. 0 Comments

I heard that on the news last night. I haven’t gone and looked it up yet, because I’m betting that the first report I find about VW leaving, will be followed by loads of angry comments blaming Gov. Granholm for it. Just a moment. I’ll go look now.

Wow, talk about angry rhetoric. Seriously, this is what one comment said:

“Michigan is economically dead last.
Extreme liberalism and Bolshevism has failed this state.
Imprison the leaders of the left. Cut all Detroiters off the welfare rolls.
Dismantle the UAW.
RECALL GRANHOLM NOW!”

Thanks, “stinkpig” (yes that’s what he calls himself). So insightful. One blamed Granholm for not regulating the companies enough, though most say Michigan regulates companies too much. What’s so pathetic is those who want to blame one person for all of Michigan’s problems would never blame George Bush for all of the country’s problems. Blaming Jennifer Granholm for all of the area’s problems is not only stupid and wrong, it’s also unhelpful, and probably actually harmful to the area. So what’s the problem? The problem is YOU! Well o.k., not you, you, but the other “yous”, who are probably not even reading this (as if anyone does). The problem is this area sucks, and has sucked for as long as I can remember. It doesn’t suck because of the geography, or even the climate, (though many would argue those two points), it’s the people. Of course it’s not all the people, just the average person who finger point, yet don’t contribute, and don’t want to change (yes, getting a college degree really is a good idea). This area is conservative, and I’m not talking about values. Look up the definition of conservative, and re-read the part about seeking to preserve the status-quo. VW is not the problem. VW is progressive, and progress is not welcome in such a conservative area.

Why does the area suck so much? As I’ve said many times, it’s not the “area”, it’s the people. I just read this on Happynews.com. The writer talks about getting out of your “seat”, in a figurative manner, and trying something new, experiencing something new, meeting new people, and in general seeing things from a new perspective. It reminded me of Detroit. Every time I talk about how great other places I’ve been to or live are, I get someone interjecting how much they love Detroit, and how great it is. “Well, o.k., so the crime’s bad, but you know, there’s good sports teams, and the people are friendly.” What they mean is, “I’m comfortable here, and change scares me. Usually the person saying this is someone who hasn’t had a different job in years, goes on vacation only to places that they know, eat at the same restaurants every time, and have most likely never lived anywhere else. So of course they don’t know what they’re talking about. Here’s a newsflash. People are friendly everywhere! In fact friends from New York asked me why everyone was so unfriendly here. I said people are bitter. They had a good thing going, and they didn’t really have to do anything, and now they’ve had their good thing taken away, and they don’t have a clue as to what to do. They won’t try a new “seat.” The unknown is scarier to them then the shi*ty situation they’re already in.

This is why VW, and anyone who is slightly progressive, is getting the heck out of town. Michigan’s in trouble because we rely on one industry, and three companies to provide the entire economy of the area. Without the Big Three, were would Detroit be? Where are the entrepreneurs? Sure you can find a few, but a thriving area has thousands. And I’m not talking about someone who started a lawn care company, I’m talking about progressive entrepreneurial-ism. We just don’t have it, period. Anyone who feels the way I do is itching to get out. Those who liked Detroit the way it was can stay. They can blame all those who are leaving for there problems, or they can do something about it. My guess is they’ll blame those who leave, and won’t fix it.

Oh yeah, one more thing. It’s not the taxes you idiots! Michigan ranks right in the middle as far as business taxes go, and it ranks pretty darn well as far as individual taxes go. There are two states in particular that have great economies, but rank way below Michigan. They would be New York, and California. If it was taxes, those two states would be in our situation, and they’re not.

News on Detroit

Published August 29th, 2007 in politicians, losers, politics, poverty, Michigan, rants and Detroit. 0 Comments

Apparently the only thing that happens in Detroit is that pro sports teams play sports. Or maybe it’s that that’s the only positive thing that happens in Detroit? Or perhaps Detroiter’s feel the need to validate their own lives by associating with highly paid, successful, professional athletes? Who knows, I suppose it’s better to obsess about sports than about some movie stars lives, but…

Well, after searching I found some real news, and of course there wasn’t really much that was good. Former city councilman Bates faces up to 41 months in prison for putting family and friends on the city’s payroll, without actually requiring them to work. Michigan had three cities with some of the highest rates of poverty, including Flint, Saginaw, and of course, Detroit, which has a poverty rate of 32.5%. The state’s poverty, as a whole rate, is higher than the nations. Also, the area’s housing prices declined 11%.

Some good news please…anything?

Newt slams Detroit…

Published July 31st, 2007 in losers, angry people, politicians, politics, Michigan, rants and Detroit. 0 Comments

Wow, now I feel vindicated. I always said Detroit sucked, now I know Detroit sucks. Thanks Newt!

Apparently Newt thinks Detroit’s a disaster. Newt should know a thing or two about disasters…

Few things anger me more than Detroit’s inability to do anything right, but a self-righteous politician, preaching morality while cheating on his wife would be one of them. Newt should just shut up and go away once and for all…

In other news people died in Detroit again last night while stealing cars, and the Mayor still wants to knock down Tiger Stadium to create a vacant lot…I mean to make way for the wave of new construction about to hit the area…

GM did post it’s second quarterly profit in a row! And, apparently there are a lot of angry people on the left and the right with nothing to do in Metro Detroit. Just read the comments to any story about Michigan or Detroit on the Free Press web site. Everything’s the fault of the Right or the Left, depending on your leaning. Get a life… and maybe a job that keeps you a little busier, or a just a job…

The Motor(less) City