As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Michigan Politics: Republican Judges No Longer In Majority

1568101161

Posts

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Personally, I think we should just relocate the people (you could force it through eminent domain) but that is a political land mine.

    What good would that do?

    Racist wealthy white people would flock there now they since the city would no longer have a black majority population.

    Harry Dresden on
  • SeidkonaSeidkona Had an upgrade Registered User regular
    Personally, I think we should just relocate the people (you could force it through eminent domain) but that is a political land mine.

    What good would that do?

    The concept is that if you pulled everyone from the neighborhoods where there was maybe one person for every block then you could revive the city and stop providing services to areas that are eating up far more resources than they should.

    There are whole city blocks that have one person living on them. Services are provided to that block because you can't just leave people with nothing but it sucks up a lot of resources.

    Mostly just huntin' monsters.
    XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    Personally, I think we should just relocate the people (you could force it through eminent domain) but that is a political land mine.

    We still need to spend the money decommissioning the excess infrastructure. Detroit is a city-size brownfield problem. It will need outside money for the same reason brownfield sites always need outside money. They are a huge public bad.

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    I'm a huge fan of this as one potential aspect of a means of making Detroit a better place that does good for the people living there.

    Obviously.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    I'm a huge fan of this as one potential aspect of a means of making Detroit a better place that does good for the people living there.

    Obviously.

    You can move to America... but only Detroit.

    That is harshhhh!

    shryke
  • NotEasyBeingGreenNotEasyBeingGreen Registered User regular
    Personally, I think we should just relocate the people (you could force it through eminent domain) but that is a political land mine.

    I completely agree. It worked with the Indians and with the Germans after WW2

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Personally, I think we should just relocate the people (you could force it through eminent domain) but that is a political land mine.

    I completely agree. It worked with the Indians and with the Germans after WW2

    Space thought the Trail of Tears was a good idea. :?

    Harry Dresden on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    Personally, I think we should just relocate the people (you could force it through eminent domain) but that is a political land mine.

    We still need to spend the money decommissioning the excess infrastructure. Detroit is a city-size brownfield problem. It will need outside money for the same reason brownfield sites always need outside money. They are a huge public bad.

    Would it be more costly to update and clean the infrastructure, or to abandon it and clean it up?

    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    I'm a huge fan of this as one potential aspect of a means of making Detroit a better place that does good for the people living there.

    Obviously.

    You can move to America... but only Detroit.

    That is harshhhh!

    Politically and practically impossible, but theoretically viable. Imagine unlimited STEM visas but all the immigrants are indentured to live in Detroit for a decade. Companies would want that talent, even if they have them telecommute.

    It's a nice fairytale that helps clarify the structural issues that need fixing.

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    I think if we want people to move, we should maybe use carrots rather than sticks. To the extent that people are problems, sticks are likely at least one factor that put them in the position they are in today.

    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
    Harry DresdenSeidkona
  • SeidkonaSeidkona Had an upgrade Registered User regular
    The only person worse than Romney I can think of for the position would be L. Brooks Patterson. He's a local name so I wouldn't expect anyone from out of town to know the guy but he's a large part of the problem in the area as he represents the rich suburban neighborhoods and has been quite outspoken about how Wayne county (Detroit's county and primarily comprising of a Black populace.) is doing it all wrong.

    I only say he might be it because all he seems to talk about lately is how great it'd be for it to happen and he'd probably go after it as a final fuck you for all those years he fought with Coleman Young.

    Mostly just huntin' monsters.
    XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    I'm a huge fan of this as one potential aspect of a means of making Detroit a better place that does good for the people living there.

    Obviously.

    You can move to America... but only Detroit.

    That is harshhhh!

    Politically and practically impossible, but theoretically viable. Imagine unlimited STEM visas but all the immigrants are indentured to live in Detroit for a decade. Companies would want that talent, even if they have them telecommute.

    It's a nice fairytale that helps clarify the structural issues that need fixing.

    High-skill immigration is the thing everyone has at least the words for supporting. What makes it politically/practically impossible?

    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    I'm a huge fan of this as one potential aspect of a means of making Detroit a better place that does good for the people living there.

    Obviously.

    You can move to America... but only Detroit.

    That is harshhhh!

    Politically and practically impossible, but theoretically viable. Imagine unlimited STEM visas but all the immigrants are indentured to live in Detroit for a decade. Companies would want that talent, even if they have them telecommute.

    It's a nice fairytale that helps clarify the structural issues that need fixing.

    High-skill immigration is the thing everyone has at least the words for supporting. What makes it politically/practically impossible?

    Read my recent thread on the topic.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    I'm a huge fan of this as one potential aspect of a means of making Detroit a better place that does good for the people living there.

    Obviously.

    You can move to America... but only Detroit.

    That is harshhhh!

    Politically and practically impossible, but theoretically viable. Imagine unlimited STEM visas but all the immigrants are indentured to live in Detroit for a decade. Companies would want that talent, even if they have them telecommute.

    It's a nice fairytale that helps clarify the structural issues that need fixing.

    High-skill immigration is the thing everyone has at least the words for supporting. What makes it politically/practically impossible?

    Read my recent thread on the topic.

    As in the post I linked to though, the visa I was considering would be location-specific, not employer/employment specific. If there's problems it causes or has, I think they'd be separate from what you're talking about.

    Maybe I missed something though.

    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • NotEasyBeingGreenNotEasyBeingGreen Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    I'm a huge fan of this as one potential aspect of a means of making Detroit a better place that does good for the people living there.

    Obviously.

    You can move to America... but only Detroit.

    That is harshhhh!

    Beats moving to Texas

    Hacksaw
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    I'm a huge fan of this as one potential aspect of a means of making Detroit a better place that does good for the people living there.

    Obviously.

    You can move to America... but only Detroit.

    That is harshhhh!

    Politically and practically impossible, but theoretically viable. Imagine unlimited STEM visas but all the immigrants are indentured to live in Detroit for a decade. Companies would want that talent, even if they have them telecommute.

    It's a nice fairytale that helps clarify the structural issues that need fixing.

    High-skill immigration is the thing everyone has at least the words for supporting. What makes it politically/practically impossible?

    How would we make the immigrants stay in Detroit as opposed to move to the suburbs? Any answer to that question is academically entertaining, but ultimately unserious.

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    I'm a huge fan of this as one potential aspect of a means of making Detroit a better place that does good for the people living there.

    Obviously.

    You can move to America... but only Detroit.

    That is harshhhh!

    Politically and practically impossible, but theoretically viable. Imagine unlimited STEM visas but all the immigrants are indentured to live in Detroit for a decade. Companies would want that talent, even if they have them telecommute.

    It's a nice fairytale that helps clarify the structural issues that need fixing.

    High-skill immigration is the thing everyone has at least the words for supporting. What makes it politically/practically impossible?

    How would we make the immigrants stay in Detroit as opposed to move to the suburbs? Any answer to that question is academically entertaining, but ultimately unserious.

    They'd have to have a residence in the designated area, and wouldn't be valid for employment in other places.

    They'd still be able to move freely, take vacations in Florida or whatever, they'd just be limited in terms of residence and employment location.

    Unserious how?

    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    Among all the doom and gloom, I want to point out that I do think there is a viable economic core for a turnaround. Education, healthcare, trade, and financial services all have decent footholds in the city. But the legacy cost need dealing with first. And I'm not just talking about balance sheet liabilities but about the very real infrastructure and residential overhang and brownfield contamination.

    Edith UpwardsSeidkona
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    French photographers Marchand and Meffre have a nice photo tour on their website that begins to give you a feel for the problem.

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    enc0re wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    I'm a huge fan of this as one potential aspect of a means of making Detroit a better place that does good for the people living there.

    Obviously.

    You can move to America... but only Detroit.

    That is harshhhh!

    Politically and practically impossible, but theoretically viable. Imagine unlimited STEM visas but all the immigrants are indentured to live in Detroit for a decade. Companies would want that talent, even if they have them telecommute.

    It's a nice fairytale that helps clarify the structural issues that need fixing.

    High-skill immigration is the thing everyone has at least the words for supporting. What makes it politically/practically impossible?

    How would we make the immigrants stay in Detroit as opposed to move to the suburbs? Any answer to that question is academically entertaining, but ultimately unserious.

    They'd have to have a residence in the designated area, and wouldn't be valid for employment in other places.

    They'd still be able to move freely, take vacations in Florida or whatever, they'd just be limited in terms of residence and employment location.

    Unserious how?

    I understand the command you're proposing. Now think about how you would handle the 'control' part, AKA enforcement.

    enc0re on
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    I'm a huge fan of this as one potential aspect of a means of making Detroit a better place that does good for the people living there.

    Obviously.

    You can move to America... but only Detroit.

    That is harshhhh!

    Beats moving to Texas

    You'd like think so, but there aren't any shithole cities disintegrating to nothing while the people war with each other and the governor ejects the local government to install an emergency dictator here...

    :bz

    emnmnme
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    I'm a huge fan of this as one potential aspect of a means of making Detroit a better place that does good for the people living there.

    Obviously.

    You can move to America... but only Detroit.

    That is harshhhh!

    Politically and practically impossible, but theoretically viable. Imagine unlimited STEM visas but all the immigrants are indentured to live in Detroit for a decade. Companies would want that talent, even if they have them telecommute.

    It's a nice fairytale that helps clarify the structural issues that need fixing.

    High-skill immigration is the thing everyone has at least the words for supporting. What makes it politically/practically impossible?

    How would we make the immigrants stay in Detroit as opposed to move to the suburbs? Any answer to that question is academically entertaining, but ultimately unserious.

    They'd have to have a residence in the designated area, and wouldn't be valid for employment in other places.

    They'd still be able to move freely, take vacations in Florida or whatever, they'd just be limited in terms of residence and employment location.

    Unserious how?

    I understand the command you're proposing. Now think about how you would hand the 'control' part, AKA enforcement.

    Fines to the relevant employers and deportations or more for the immigrants.

    It's not like the US doesn't have a heavy-handed INS already.

    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Erich Zahn wrote: »
    This is a small cabal using a technicality to reinstate a law that the people repealed by popular vote.

    How anyone can believe that this is democratic is beyond me.

    You can vote those people out.

    Elected representatives do unpopular shit; voters punish them.

    Please explain how failing to achieve one's goals is a form of punishment and how an administration which overrides a popular vote constitutes a government of the smallest parts.

    Edith Upwards on
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    There aren't nearly enough jobs for the people already in Detroit. How does brinfig in more people solve the problem?

    Unless you just want to drive my wages and job prospects here in Ann Arbor down...

    Consolidating low density areas, bulldozing into easily maintained parks, cutting services, possibly shrinking the city limits themselves. Could work a bit, but what next?

    You gotta get jobs, need education for that. This isn't an easy one or five year fix, it'll take generations at best.

    Harry DresdenSeidkona
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    enc0re wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    I'm a huge fan of this as one potential aspect of a means of making Detroit a better place that does good for the people living there.

    Obviously.

    You can move to America... but only Detroit.

    That is harshhhh!

    Politically and practically impossible, but theoretically viable. Imagine unlimited STEM visas but all the immigrants are indentured to live in Detroit for a decade. Companies would want that talent, even if they have them telecommute.

    It's a nice fairytale that helps clarify the structural issues that need fixing.

    High-skill immigration is the thing everyone has at least the words for supporting. What makes it politically/practically impossible?

    How would we make the immigrants stay in Detroit as opposed to move to the suburbs? Any answer to that question is academically entertaining, but ultimately unserious.

    They'd have to have a residence in the designated area, and wouldn't be valid for employment in other places.

    They'd still be able to move freely, take vacations in Florida or whatever, they'd just be limited in terms of residence and employment location.

    Unserious how?

    I understand the command you're proposing. Now think about how you would hand the 'control' part, AKA enforcement.

    Fines to the relevant employers and deportations or more for the immigrants.

    It's not like the US doesn't have a heavy-handed INS already.

    There's only so much time I want to spend on this tangent. If you think a homeland security enforced indentured immigrant ghetto in Detroit is politically viable, knock yourself out trying to get people on board.

    enc0re on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    There aren't nearly enough jobs for the people already in Detroit. How does brinfig in more people solve the problem?

    The amount of jobs available is not static. The abailability of STEM people could very well create a demand for their employment. Them working in a given area may in turn create demand for more employment in the area.

    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    Erich Zahn wrote: »
    Erich Zahn wrote: »
    This is a small cabal using a technicality to reinstate a law that the people repealed by popular vote.

    How anyone can believe that this is democratic is beyond me.

    You can vote those people out.

    Elected representatives do unpopular shit; voters punish them.

    Please explain how failing to achieve one's goals is a form of punishment and how an administration which overrides a popular vote constitutes a government of the smallest parts.

    "A government of the smallest parts"? I'm not familiar with that phrase.

    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    If you think a homeland security enforced indentured immigrant ghetto in Detroit is politically viable, knock yourself out trying to get people on board.

    I think it's good policy; I don't think a good deal of good policy is politically viable in the US, given the nature of the legislative apparatus.

    I'd prefer more immigration in general; I think immigration without restrictions on employment or location would be preferable. I offer this as one of my preferred solutions to Detroit's problems.

    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    I'm a huge fan of this as one potential aspect of a means of making Detroit a better place that does good for the people living there.

    Obviously.

    You can move to America... but only Detroit.

    That is harshhhh!

    Beats moving to Texas

    You'd like think so, but there aren't any shithole cities disintegrating to nothing while the people war with each other and the governor ejects the local government to install an emergency dictator here...

    :bz

    Yeah moving to a city in Texas isn't all that bad.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Noone will like this idea, but wouldn't "reservations" for the poor actually be really good? You could make people live in efficient, high density housing with a small, easily maintained mass transit system, you would have a smaller number of schools which would make it easier to improve them, and in general, it would make the provision of high quality services to them much more viable.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Noone will like this idea, but wouldn't "reservations" for the poor actually be really good? You could make people live in efficient, high density housing with a small, easily maintained mass transit system, you would have a smaller number of schools which would make it easier to improve them, and in general, it would make the provision of high quality services to them much more viable.

    I... I...

    There are no words.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    SeidkonaSummaryJudgmentJuliusHacksawzagdrobMuddypaws
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Noone will like this idea, but wouldn't "reservations" for the poor actually be really good? You could make people live in efficient, high density housing with a small, easily maintained mass transit system, you would have a smaller number of schools which would make it easier to improve them, and in general, it would make the provision of high quality services to them much more viable.

    shrykeHacksawzagdrobJaysonFour
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Now we have two posters proposing ghettos as solutions? This is starting to seriously creep me out.

    enc0re on
    shrykeHacksawzagdrobMan in the MistsJaysonFourForar
  • ButtlordButtlord Fornicus Lord of Bondage and PainRegistered User regular
    Noone will like this idea, but wouldn't "reservations" for the poor actually be really good? You could make people live in efficient, high density housing with a small, easily maintained mass transit system, you would have a smaller number of schools which would make it easier to improve them, and in general, it would make the provision of high quality services to them much more viable.

    you're talking about segregating people based on their wealth

    literally government-mandated ghettoes

  • gavindelgavindel The reason all your software is brokenRegistered User regular
    I believe a better way to phrase that, SKFM, might be "It would be really nice if we could have modern infrastructure that encouraged public transit, concentrated services, and flexible types of housing for many income levels".

    I've got a book! Angels, innovations, and the hubris of tiny things: Seraphim
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    I'm talking about efficient use of resources. Ideally, everyone would live in high density, efficient housing, but we can't make people move, normally. But if we are providing a class of people (the poor) with all or most of their resources, why not demand that they be used efficiently? I'm not advocating a ghetto at all. I am advocating a way for us to actually provide high quality services to the poor in a practical way. Everyone wins.

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    I'm talking about efficient use of resources. Ideally, everyone would live in high density, efficient housing, but we can't make people move, normally. But if we are providing a class of people (the poor) with all or most of their resources, why not demand that they be used efficiently? I'm not advocating a ghetto at all. I am advocating a way for us to actually provide high quality services to the poor in a practical way. Everyone wins.

    Dude. Seriously. This has been tried. Concentrating poverty has horrendous effects.

    Also, your proposal is literally the definition of a ghetto.

    enc0re on
    spool32HacksawzagdrobJaysonFour
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    Now we have two posters proposing ghettos as solutions? This is starting to seriously creep me out.

    I'm not sure what problems my proposal would share with typical ghetto-related problems.

    If you'd prefer not to talk about my tangent, that's cool. Declining to "talk about" it while sniping at it isn't cool.

    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    I'm talking about efficient use of resources. Ideally, everyone would live in high density, efficient housing, but we can't make people move, normally. But if we are providing a class of people (the poor) with all or most of their resources, why not demand that they be used efficiently? I'm not advocating a ghetto at all. I am advocating a way for us to actually provide high quality services to the poor in a practical way. Everyone wins.

    And to be sure that they can be identified as such, we can make them wear identifying marks. Like...a patch, perhaps?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    Now we have two posters proposing ghettos as solutions? This is starting to seriously creep me out.

    I'm not sure what problems my proposal would share with typical ghetto-related problems.

    If you'd prefer not to talk about my tangent, that's cool. Declining to "talk about" it while sniping at it isn't cool.

    It wasn't meant as a snipe. Restricting minorities to live in a certain area is the definition of a ghetto. I wasn't trying to outline the problems associated with it or anything (although I was for SKFM). I was merely very, very surprised that two different posters were seriously proposing ghettos (although for different groups) on the same page of the same thread. It simply shocked me. That's all.

Sign In or Register to comment.