Adding to what BobLibDem, but from the Camden perspective:
Camden has been laying off Police & Fireman. These are cops already on a tight budget - if you ever saw a Camden Police car you’d know what I am talking about.
OK, what magic powers does he get to do that?
You have to have something to offer them to do that. Camden doesn’t have too much to offer at this point beyond its waterfront.
I don’t think the OP is complaining about government in general, but government as we have it today. As you pointed out, the problem is lack of vision, and a lack of willingness to take risks and upset some teacarts to make greater progress. Along with the OP, I have the impression that this is partly due to our current government. I have the sense that our government has become more divisive and less willing to compromise. That it is prey to more advanced and sophisticated regulatory capture techniques (which on the whole puts brakes on progress). That it is unwilling to consider any explicit downside and implements layers upon layers of special programs and cases and regulation intended to prevent that, and as a result we just get the downside in unintended ways (some examples: rent control, increased state licensing requirements). I don’t necessarily have data to back up these impressions. Maybe things are actually getting better and I just have a rose-colored view of the past political state.
There will always be cities in decline. We will not reach a grand utopia where everything is great everywhere all the time. But the question is are things in general getting better, and you can’t determine that by looking at cherry-picked examples of failure.
Is the standard of living going up in general? Yes. Are we still making economic and technological advances that improve things? Yes. I also think that all the catch-up growth that China and India (and many other countries) are experiencing will be a net positive for them and for us over time, even if it means that we aren’t as economically dominant as we were for a while.
How, exactly, do you think he should do this? Bear in mind these cities are already financially strapped, and you are proposing that they cut taxes even further.
Ok, so if the Detroit city government is so good, why is the city such a dump?When your tax base declines, you need to do something about it. When good residential property is abandoned, why not confiscate it and sell to someone who will develop it? The Japanese, German, and Korean automakers all built multi-billion$$ plants in the South-if they were given incentives (and relief from the unions) they might have built in Detroit.
Of course, they did not…because the city is so well managed and prosperous!
Oh I get it Unions=Decline. So are you saying that Detroit would be awesome if everyone was making KIA’s for 8$ an hour? Oh wait we are back to trickle down economics, that sure has been working well for the past 40 years, I mean look at how well the American Middle Class is doing today. Now if we can just get rid of those regulations on the banks we can really get America moving.
CAPT
Maybe you should wonder what sort of country they’ll make. They’ll have infinitely more power over the direction of the nation in 2101 then than I do right now.
But not necessarily all cities. From what I’ve heard, Detroit has a strike against it for this in not having much mass transit. Obviously, it would have been in the auto companies’ interest to encourage all of their employees to own cars, so they might not have wanted Detroit to have good mass transit. If there are no more cheap fuels for transportation, the auto industry is probably not one that will be doing well, there’s another strike against Detroit.
There are people who grew up in the suburbs and decided they’d rather live in a city. I’m one of them. But one of the things at least some of us didn’t like about the suburbs was that you have to drive to get anywhere. That was definitely one of the things I disliked about the suburb where my family lived when I was in high school, and is the major reason why I would not consider living in a bedroom community now. People who don’t want to drive everywhere aren’t going to want to move into a city that doesn’t have much mass transit.
I spent some time visiting Detroit in the 90s. The downtown is alright, and the suburbs north of 8 Mile are very nice. In between is a vast swath of urban landscape - some areas in decay, other areas holding on, and a scant few are thriving. I recently read (sorry no cite) about Detroit’s cost-cutting programs that turn off street lights in some lightly inhabited neighborhoods. I understand they are also considering letting some sections of the city go back to nature, or convert to urban farming. I think they are actively tearing down abandoned and unsalvagable homes. Perhaps they will relocate some residents to areas where city services are still being provided. I think city leaders have finally realized the great industrial age of Detroit is long-gone and never coming back.
I suppose a city in decline will have a phase for decay, as is redily visible in some areas. But eventually stuff falls down, or burns, and if left alone for a few years or decades, an area will revert back to a natural state. Perhaps that is the future of some cities like parts of Detroit and Camden. It would seem that there is a period where the trend could be reversed - as long as infrastructure is still working. But once the sewers, water, electricity get shut off and rot away, and the streets stop getting maintenance, it will only be a matter of time before the area is returned to a semi-wild state.
KIA (USA) pays comparable wages as are paid the “Big 3” auto workers.
Detroit has a chance. It just has to do some adapting. Its already on the right track by knocking down decrepit houses, etc. A lot cities did the same thing in the past 10-15 years. Detroit also has a downtown core and some suburbs that are decent - thankfully most suburbs have come to the realization that if the city they orbit has trouble they really can’t wring their hands with glee over the firesale and hope to steal all the remaining industry - they will suffer as well.
Camden doesn’t have these advantages. Its a satellite city to begin with so whatever they do Philadelphia can probably do better, or the outer suburbs can as well. If Camden starts knocking down decrepit buildings they aren’t really going to get anything in their place.
And before we go singing the praises of courting industry and giving them everything they want: I give you New London, CT and Pfizer. How’d that work out for ya?
I lived in Camden, NJ. It’s issues are unique to it (I haven’t seen Detroit so I can’t speak for it).
Camden will never change until the entire police force and all the teachers are fired and replaced by competent people. Even then you’ve got an uphill battle of epic proportions. Camden is where the wealthy kids from nearby suburbs go to buy drugs, and as long as there’s profit, people in Camden will be selling drugs. Kids grow up in slums with no positive role models, crappy education, and no hope for the future. They don’t hope for anything because they know nothing better.
There ARE people working to help Camden. But the overall atmosphere is one of apathy.
Businesses don’t decide where to locate themselves according to taxes. They’ll use that as a threat to get lower taxes, and they’ll take lower taxes if offered of course, but lower taxes won’t keep them from moving out anyway. It’s quality of life for upper class neighborhoods (where the corporate decision makers in question will live), and things like the available of workers with the right skill sets that decide where corporations go. A nice golf course and good private schools are going to have much more effect than low taxes.
I often wonder if one day we’ll see an Escape from NY situation. Where one really bad hell hole of a city is simply walled off. Leave it to the criminals. They’d either self govern and police itself (like Australia in the penal colony days) or simply victimize and kill each other.
Not suggesting this solution at all. Mainly because of the extreme severity of our criminals. It would be survival of the meanest and most ruthless. Not something anyone would want to encourage. Australia was unique because many of their “convicts” really weren’t that bad. They were starving people jailed for stealing a loaf of bread, or simply not paying debts. People like that can turn their life around if they are given a chance like they had in Australia. The penal colony did have some really hard core criminals and they were dealt with by the courts set up by the former convicts.
I just hope the world our great-grand kids inherit in 2101 is something that gives them the opportunities to pursue their dreams. Be a doctor, lawyer, fireman, or accountant. Whatever they dream of doing. Own a home, have kids and live out their lives in peace. Really, the same dreams young couples had in 1950 are no different for people in 2101.
Interesting observation…so why did KIA, HYUNDAI, BMW, M-B, etc., decide to opt out of Detroit? The surrounding suburbs have excellent golf courses, private schools, quality of life. There is quite a difference in taxes between Michigan and Alabama, Kentucky, South Carolina…maybe that might have something to do with it?
Speaking as both an Australian and as a big fan of Australian history, I have to say that’s the most ignorant thing I’ve ever heard on the topic.
Do you really actually believe that the Brits just dumped shiploads of convicts off and left them to it? And that the convicts then formed a gov’t and started running a country?
Why focus on those cities? They suck.
The great Bethlehem Steel mill has been renovated into an…adequate…Sands Casino.
You mean John D Rockefeller and John Thompson?
Which regulations do you believe “straightjacket” businesses?
I’m watching them build a 1700’+ office building outside the window of my office. So yes. I’m pretty sure the technology for pouring vast amounts of reinforced concrete has not be lost to the ages.
Into what?
I can think of 3 in New York City alone. The previously mentioned “Freedom Tower”. The 2nd Avenue Subway. The LIRR connection to Grand Central Terminal. The last two aren’t as noticeable as they are basically removing a Hoover Dam from under the city.
Capitalism can fix cities but it only exists when good governance encourages capitalism to take place. Times Square of today is not the Times Square of the same decade that gave us the films Escape from New York and The Warriors because Gulianni cleaned it up in order to attract investment by Disney.
Unions?
I bike through Camden all the time. While its not all happiness and joy (mostly because the roads are in such bad shape - not Camden’s fault per se as these are STATE ROADS and are supposed to be maintained by the State.) but it is certainly not doomland where everyone from out of town is a fat target. That’s just suburban paranoia of the big bad city prejudice at work.
Well, after all, Hong Kong refuses to pump money into its interstate highways and far-flung national-park system, not to mention its one-hundred million population reduced to seven million through voluntary mass suicide.
You nailed it! Detroit became the center for motor vehicle production, because it was located close to iron mines, had lots of open land, and rail/sea transport connections. With all of these advantages, why would auto mfgs. avoid it now?
People forget that wages are only part of the union package-you have to cede management control when you have the UAW-plus, you have to pay a “shop steward” to do basically nothing (productive)-about one for every 45 employees.
THe transplants learned that having union representation imposes many inefficiencies.