Admittedly, Michigan needs to (and is, slowly) restructure itself. But if you're going to spend that much money, it seems that it would be better spent giving tax breaks to new businesses to move to Michigan. And if people say that government shouldn't be picking winners and losers, make the tax break available to ANY company moving to Michigan, as long as they located in "brownfield" areas instead of "greenfields". It would be cheaper and more "green" in the long run. And look at the BILLIONS in tax breaks given to the auto transplants to build their factories in the South. Why would this be any different?

THere is much to say about Detroit's problems. Many of which are problems in many cities of the US and globally. Remember that there are at least 350 cities shrinking around the world – and many of them have MUCH less going for them than Detroit.

Regional Detroit is actually around 5.4 Million people. Thats the size of Denmark, Greater Toronto and bigger than about 40 States in the US. THis is an advantage – it has its own economy. Yes, it is strangled by the auto-industry, but this restructuring is welcomed by many.

The AUTO industry is LONG overdue for the cleansing. Bring it on – but there are many other industries and economic activities in Detroit. It has huge, established Cultural, educational, health care,
technological and engineering R&D systems in place.

The City is perfectly positioned for the future, when location,location, location is all about proximity to other cities, water, and "quality" built PLACES of which Detroit has plenty – it is the oldest city in the Midwest, 1701.

The bones are good, inefficiently being used, and ready for rebirth. This is the opposite of a "growing"place like Phoenix,which is set-up for HUGE problems starting now. And it has NO good bone, no quality environment and no character – an element that is of significant value to the next boomers, the "Millenials".

Let the hold of the Auto industry loosen and let the use of the City's infrastructure, location come into a fruitful reality.

Go Detroit!!!!!!

Moving people out of Michigan and within the U.S. most of the time involves moving them away from an abundance of fresh water to locations (the SW or SE US) lacking water resources.

Jack Daniels in Tennessee had to stop production due to water shortages in that state and similar shortages occur every Summer throughout the Southeast U.S.

Water, not fossil fuels, will be the major determinant of economic reality over the next generation.

I do. Ontario has one productive and prosperous part – Greater Toronto – surrounded by sketchy industrial slums, like Hamilton.

The former is an economic term and the latter is a political label.

Or at least it was so when I studied economics in the last century.

If crime against property happens and no one reports it, no police respond. If a detached garage is on fire and no other structure is threatened, the firefighters let it burn.

I stand by the statement that public-safety services exist to protect people, streets and sidewalks and buslines exist to serve people, and trash trucks run routes to serve people.

As for streets, they don’t wear out if you don’t run trucks and buses on them, and I’m pretty sure Detroit isn’t maintaining the streets around all those vacant lots you can see in the aerial photographs.

Take the people out of the picture and you still have police and fire protecting the property. Take the stores and businesses out of the picture and you get someplace like where I live- lots of people, but no police. Cities, of course, don’t work very well without people- which in itself ought to tell you something.

The biggest municipal costs ARE people related: police/criminal justice, streets and trash. All those are directly related to people, not to property. No criminals, no victims…no police. No people living in houses…no trash service. No one driving to work…no street maintenance costs.

Shrinkage of the “urban services boundary” most assuredly would reduce city costs in the aggregate, for Detroit or for any city.