Jump start? Is there any fuel in the tank?

Listen, I feel your pain... Apparently Detroit was much like the other midwest cities that were scruffy but lovable... But it's difficult to see what kind of value is left to be extracted from that place.

I remember when Ren Cen went up.
People we're quick to point out that the place was completely inhospitable to street traffic and other community involvement, and that was twenty years after Seagram's made people think about things like that.

Detroit has just never seemed like a generous, eager-to-please town.

Ten-year-tax-holiday? Terrible idea. In ten years' time, it will quickly move from temporary reprieve to entitlement. They will not be profoundly grateful for the break and dutifully line up to resume paying taxes at the end of ten years. They'll be outraged that they suddenly have to start paying taxes.

Regarding states that have no income tax, I live in one. Florida does manage to collect revenue from the tax payer, however. If you wish to cut down a tree on your own property or build an addition to your home, for instance, you must get a permit. Plan on owning a car in Florida? You won't have to pay for inspections, but you'll be paying out the wazoo in fees.

Personally, I'd rather just pay the annual income tax rather than being hit with fees for everything.

"Personally, I'd rather just pay the annual income tax rather than being hit with fees for everything."

Puh-leeze. You'll do both elsewhere.

And tax breaks, especially for companies or corporations, are nasty things to those who have better things to do with your money. The idea of allowing somebody to prosper and build homes and lives with the fruits of their own labor is inconsequential next to the purity of their ideas about welfare and similar programs.

Point of fact: a corporation, the bulk of which are not mega-billion-dollar multinationals, is a legal fiction constructed to coordinate activity. It is actually impossible to impose any cost whatsoever that is not borne by the consumer. It is possible to limit the prosperity of said corporation so that it never becomes successful, because the market determines what it may charge for its services, and this is independent of expenses like taxes, fees, levies, surcharges and other such crap assigned politically-correct names to confuse people.
But accountants know about money, and that's why companies relocate - away from you. Good luck getting a job when they do that.

Patrick -

I'll trade you your no income tax for my income tax. CT just raised drivers license, car registration, and a whole host of other fees this year.

And that's after raising the income tax lat year.

CT is the only state to have never recovered from the 1991 recession. And as long as the children continue to run Hartford, it won't recover from the 2001 or 2007 ones either.

To give you an idea of how fucked up this state is, my friend is moving to California.

CALIFORNIA!

Patrick,

NY has a just under 7% Income Tax, sales tax here is just under 9%, and fees everywhere. They are even making us pay extra to get those hideously ugly blue and yellow license plates. Tolls on the Thruway, which were supposed to be abolished when the bonds were paid off have been raised.

That abolition of the phone tax to pay for the Spanish-American war is the last tax you will ever see eliminated.

"His firm calculates that total costs for running an IT firm in Detroit could be within five percentage points of Brazil...."

Good luck with that. My reaction to that was the thought that the CEO is perhaps unfamiliar with doing business in places like Detroit.

Won't work, and I'll tell you why: Detroit's problem isn't just economic. It's cultural. There's a Third World mentality there that says that government is supposed to provide for everyone, and nobody will vote for a politician who refuses to promise goodies and handouts. It would probably take two generations to purge that.

I don't know off-hand of any city or country that has ever recovered from falling into that mentality. Does anyone else?

There's a Third World mentality there that says that government is supposed to provide for everyone, and nobody will vote for a politician who refuses to promise goodies and handouts.

While this reasoning certainly explains Kwame Kilpatrick, it can't explain Dennis Archer or our current Dave Bing (perhaps the most honest big city mayor in the country.)

Detroit has shrunk from a population high of 1.8 million in the 50's to what everyone expects to be 500k in the 2010 census. However, the city borders have not shrunk and there is more vacant land than developed land.

Detroit has a chicken-and-egg problem. People won't move into the city because there are no services and there are no services because there are no people. Compuware and GM have recently headquartered their companies in the city, and there has been a considerable re-development of the business district (both residential and services) as a result. They were attracted by tax cuts offered by Mayor Archer.

A cut in business taxes may very well be the only way out of our current mess. If we can entice businesses, the people and services must follow. And then the government and schools will be improved by a population who cares. If you know the Detroit suburbs, you can see how fast this process can work as it did in Royal Oak.

"However, the city borders have not shrunk and there is more vacant land than developed land."

Allen, I have read various places that Detroit is pulling its city limits in to a perimeter where it can actually function, and telling everyone outside that perimiter that they can either take the buy-out the city is offering or just get used ot living in the country. Is that 1) true and if so, 2) working?

Tax holidays have been the southern states main tool in getting companies to move operations in, and it has worked for years. But there they have the advantage of the opposite Third World mentality than the one cited above, that of expecting nothing from the government except intereference in people's personal lives.

Hello people - let me be the one to point out that, while lowering taxes would certainly help, Detroit's primary problem is of a a demographic nature.

Yours truly,
The Elephant In The Room.

CousinDave: "There's a Third World mentality there that says that government is supposed to provide for everyone, and nobody will vote for a politician who refuses to promise goodies and handouts."

AllenS: "While this reasoning certainly explains Kwame Kilpatrick, it can't explain Dennis Archer or our current Dave Bing (perhaps the most honest big city mayor in the country.)"

CousinDave is correct, in part. There is a Third World mentality in Detroit. But it is that the Big Man is supposed to provide for HIS PEOPLE. And the current residents will eagerly vote for a mayoral candidate who delivers handouts of OTHER PEOPLE'S money.

Coleman Young was the corrupt founding patriarch of Detroit's four-decade experiment in third world politics in modern America. Kwame Kilpatrick was a hip hop update of Coleman Young, without the interesting personality.

Dennis Archer was a brief slow down in Detroit's slide into the slough of third world corruption and misrule. We will see if Bing is just another temporary resident unable to change matters.

I often compare Detroit to Pittsburgh. When I last visited Pittsburgh a decade ago, I found a rust belt city built for about twice as many people as lived there then, much like Detroit. But Pittsburgh seemed much better than Detroit, which seemed like a city still suffering a plague.

I'm sensing racism in this thread. The code-word is "demographics".

@Jim:

The city is not shrinking its borders as that is impossible. I've read articles that say there is no mechanism in the state for a city to give up land ... it can only annex to add land. Even if this were possible the state has no inclination to buy it as its budget crisis is as big as Detroit's. Add that the city and the state are largely Democratic, and the electorate wouldn't dare piss off its constituency by throwing them out of the city.

To the folks that claim the the problem lies purely in the hands of the entitled African Americans remaining in the city. Let me remind you that the "white flight" that struck Detroit in droves in the 50's-80's is the real reason for the problem. Nobody is really sure why this effect was so much more complete in Detroit (it happened to all big cities to some degree during this time period.) It's not that Detroit is 85% Black, but the remaining citizens are completely destitute, with over 50% unemployment. The middle class African Americans left the city about 10 years ago.

My point is that there are so few people left in the city that even a modest revival and the influx of a 100k people who care (of any color) could turn the city around. I believe there is currently about a 15% voter turnout for any election in the city (about 75k folks.)

> I'm sensing racism in this thread. The code-word
> is "demographics".

I was kinda thinkin' that too.

When we're talking about the health of American cities, it's our habit to assume that there's a vast cache of unseen, untapped potential just under the surface. Thinking about it in those terms has made a lot of these towns into terrific places to live, with dynamic, responsive governments hosting aggressive industries.

But it's fair to ask if there is in fact some hidden parcel of value in Detroit... Not just because the people are black and impoverished, but because even in its postwar heyday, the American car business wasn't known for being particularly attentive to ANYONE... Not to customers, not to employees, not to vendors or clients, not to financiers and not to regulators.

Cars were so important to us that nobody cared that that Detroit's products were no good. When the Japanese pulled it together in the 70's, Detroit got its face slapped, and then just stood there to get slapped again and again. Their stupidity was impenetrable, decade after decade... Nothing got through to those people, nothing. Not safety. Not style or marketing. Not environmentalism. Nothing.

Meanwhile, in California....

Today was Apple Announcement day, so I have Steve Jobs on my mind. I don't like him as much as I like other people, but he's Steve Jobs and I'm not. He's ruled a huge segment of the most exciting industry of my lifetime for some very good reasons, not the least of which is his breathtaking capacity to recover from failure to and surround himself with brilliant contributors. He's been doing it since before he was old enough to drink.

Are we still talking about Detroit? Forget the assembly-line guys. If you were 20 year old genius and you were planning to lead an industry by building a revolutionary, beloved product for the 21st century, would you come to Detroit? Even if you assembled your team of eagles from the best in the world, is Detroit where you'd want them to live and socialize? Imagine the sort of mentality your people would encounter from the infrastructural types in Detroit: The lawyers, the transportation people, the educators, all the people they might have lunch with on a random Tuesday.

Can you imagine a milieu less likely to inspire excellence and courageous thinking?

Race is a big problem in Detroit, indisputably and inexcusably. But I think they have other problems.

Even if you assembled your team of eagles from the best in the world, is Detroit where you'd want them to live and socialize?

This was the big arguement when our tech company moved downtown. It's been 7 years and we have no trouble attracting talent. Talent goes where the money and opportunity are. You think that there is something inherintly better about Boston or Seattle over Detroit? They all have piss poor weather, large minority populations and long coastlines. Detroit's biggest problem is that we've been a single industry town for 100 years ... an industry that is increasingly being shipped overseas. It's time to diversify and attract something else.

"Let me remind you that the "white flight" that struck Detroit in droves in the 50's-80's is the real reason for the problem"

Um, yeah, so whites are responsible for the collapse of black societies simply for ... not being there.

Do you know why Detroit was the car Mecca in the first place?

I don't - but I bet it's gone.

"I'm sensing racism in this thread. The code-word is "demographics"."

Be my guest to point at a population that is anywhere near as big a problem.

You won't get any help by looking at Bureau of Justice crime stats, that's for damned sure - but you might notice how big that elephant mentioned earlier really is.

That is, if you take off politically-correct blinders.

I think a massive infusion of chinese immigrants would help. Maybe 200,000 or 300,000; whole families, extended families, hell who knows, maybe complete clans. They could be a critical mass that would not so easily bend to the current population of Detroit( one mafia of people to challenge a different mafia), would occupying the excess housing and bring the city back to life.

> It's time to diversify and attract something else.

With what? To what?

"I'm sensing racism in this thread. The code-word is 'demographics'."--Crusader

Make Detroit 100% white, and have the city residents act the same way, my opinions don't change.

Do yours?

"You think that there is something inherintly better about Boston or Seattle over Detroit?"

Having been to all three cities, the answer is "yes", there is not just something better about Seattle and Boston over Detroit, there are many things better in those locations.

Boston is wonderful.

Seattle merely pleasant.

Detroit is a bleak, dank slough.

Um, yeah, so whites are responsible for the collapse of black societies simply for ... not being there.

Every city has its bad apples. In Detroit, that's the only thing left.

Do you know why Detroit was the car Mecca in the first place?

Uhmmm ... I believe that their names were Henry Ford, Ransome E Olds, David Buick, Louis Chevrolet, Walter Chrysler, John Dodge, etc. Why these inventors all lived near Detroit was some kind of cosmic coincidence. The Great Lakes and surrounding rivers provided cheap power and transportation, so that certainly helped.

Having been to all three cities, the answer is "yes", there is not just something better about Seattle and Boston over Detroit, there are many things better in those locations.

I was speaking from a geographical/weather sense. It's not like Detroit is Glasgow or Moscow.

As to what to attract ... that was the point of this blog post I believe. Attract any company with tax incentives, the workers will follow. BTW, we have one of the world's top universities not 35 miles down the road. There is all kinds of locally grown talent from which to recruit.

Hmmmm, might there be a connection between decades of union supported, Obama-like policies run by Democrats???

Just askin'!

As Albert Einstein famously said:

The definition of Insanity is: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Before anyone gets enthusiastic about any proposals put forth by the likes of Gingrich, it's a good idea to review recent history.

On the federal level, some of the programs most bedeviled by huge cost overruns, and plagued by dubious justifications, were heavily promoted by Republican presidents.

Reagan promoted the International Space Station. Just what good has this very expensive program done relative to the cost? Likewise, the Stragetic Defense Initiative, the notion of shooting down ballistic missiles, was promoted by Reagan. 27 years later, there isn't much progress to show relative to the vast expenditures for this program, which now seems to be politically unstoppable because the federal contracts for parts of the program are scattered so widely around the country. Furthermore, Republican politicians have actively done what they could to squelch independent investigators who were turning up big problems with the effectiveness of that program. Then G.W. Bush promoted the idea that the U.S. should seek to return to the Moon than go on to Mars. Again, where is the benefit in this relative to the huge cost. I could go on for some time....

Americans often fall for ideas promoted by the likes of Newt Gingrich. Republicans will say it's necessary to hold the line on spending - but only for things they are opposed to. However, when it comes to things that Republicans want, that's a different matter. They think a program they want is justified, regardless of costs and results.

The Republican candidate for governor in my state is talking about phasing out the state's income tax, although (a) it provides a lot of revenue to the state, (b) the tax was cut significantly between 2004 and 2008, and (c) the state faces an estimated $8 billion budget gap for the next two-year budget once the current budget period ends.

I'm an Independent so I'm not touting Democrats, either, but these Repubicans are STILL putting the cart before the horse on issues involving money. What they need to do is to do is get serious about addressing the financial problems of government at all levels. That's what they used to do, but they drifted.

"27 years later, there isn't much progress to show relative to the vast expenditures for this program,..."

Evidently you missed the USS Port Royal shooting the satellite. One shot, one kill, not much effort.

And what can you show me for the trillions spent on the "war on poverty"? Subsidized single motherhood. Way to go!

If all you read is the "normal" media, all you're going to get is articles about how we suck. I dunno - maybe you like that idea, but I suggest a trip to the library and a look at Aviation Week & Space Technology.

When you want "technology" you don't just clap your hands and get it. You have to keep the artisans at work all the time, not just when you want a new iPhone to babble about, through and to.

but I suggest a trip to the library and a look at Aviation Week & Space Technology.

You mean to say Aviation Leak & Spy Technology. ;-) (Sorry you need the history to get the joke)

I'm more than willing to give up the $20B as long as you are giving up on the rest of the entitlements. Such as Social Security, Medicare, Health care reform, a good chunk of the defense budget. But the price for giving that up is the DOE is gone, the limit of the CDC, EPA, Department of the Interior, and just about every other department needs to be limited to only what the commerce act considers.

Radwaste, it's been decades since I've perused "Aviation Week", but regarding the USS Port Royal shootdown of a missile, well, let's not forget the failures, too. Or the fact that many of the attempted missile shootdowns didn't work; or that these attempts hardly simulate the sorts of conditions that might occur during actual battle condition. But they do help certain politicians come across as tough on national security.

I'm a fiscal conservative, and consider myself a realist. While it's been a while, Republicans used to be genuinely concerned about limiting government spending. Nowadays, many of them do nothing but hustle for votes, hence, they bait people with lines like our wanna-be Republican governor talking about ending the income tax despite the state's awful financial picture. But plenty of people who vote for Republican candidates fall for the baloney.