> If you research Coleman Young's failures with detroit. NYC is basically following lockstep with how he failed detroit and caused the city of detroit's decline.
Could you explain how Coleman Young caused Detroit's decline? My understanding - but maybe I am wrong - was that the decline was caused by the auto industry gradually moving production out of Detroit and into suburbs in the 1950s, causing massive unemployment among low-mobility black workers in Detroit proper in the 1960s, causing the 1967 riot, causing white and wealthy black families to flee the city, and by the time Coleman Young was elected in 1973, the city was doomed to spiral into economic and social failure.
>Could you explain how Coleman Young caused Detroit's decline? My understanding - but maybe I am wrong - was that the decline was caused by the auto industry gradually moving production out of Detroit and into suburbs in the 1950s, causing massive unemployment among low-mobility black workers in Detroit proper in the 1960s, causing the 1967 riot, causing white and wealthy black families to flee the city, and by the time Coleman Young was elected in 1973, the city was doomed to spiral into economic and social failure.
This subject could be a book. It probably is a book but I dont have any recommendations on hand sorry.
Much of your understanding is correct, if not all. But it's a matter of timing. Worse yet, it's impossible to disconnect the racism factor for sure. But also makes understanding the situation so much worse.
The huge missing factor here is the 'interstate blame' but you cant move the packard plant down the road. That's too costly, businesses will stay as long as they can tolerate.
If you look at metro detroit, it didn't decline until Kwame.
But the big question, why move to the burbs? Why not move to another city? That's the depth which is missing from a wiki page that matters.
Poor unemployed workers is a godsend to businesses. Businesses move in to gain access to high unemployment and cheap labour. Basically Chinese coast 101 and globalism.
Even outside detroit, the flint michigan strikes had lasting major consequences for detroit.
The riots only lasted a few days and were insignificant compared to the BLM riots or the Seattle insurrection.
These obviously being heavily influenced by MLK and Rosa Parks; but also the underground railroad which saved so many slaves and deposited them in detroit or windsor. But they were only isolated to the black ghetto, white people really didnt care here. The riots never really left the black neighbourhood. The looting was of their own community. Why would white people necessarily be upset to any large degree about 5 days of unrest?
At the time of these riots, unemployment of black people was the same as white people. Roughly around 2-3%. The high unemployment occurred after.
It had everything to do with taxation policies, but you can get away with taxing successful businesses for a long time. If you increase taxes, the army of accountants will crunch the numbers. They figure out the number of years of ROI vs amortization of moving.
when coleman young got into power, 1973. The city was still pretty much white people, but blacks were extremely high turnout to vote and whites were busy in the burbs and didnt vote, voting was heavily down racial lines, and businesses hadnt yet fled to major significance. The interstates allowed commuters to drive into the city. I believe in terms of actual census, blacks didnt get parity with whites until the early 80s.
But the writing was on the wall. Nobody would invest into the city of detroit at that point when they are actively looking at the burbs. No investment means decline, but not significant quick decline.
Coleman right away had to deal with this and he knew it.
You don't hear about racist 'affirmative action' stuff anymore, but that was him. He did that. He had tons of racist policies, taxes were largely speaking only spent on initiatives for black people. It was literally a sort of 'ill get back at you for segregation' which the civil rights act and desegregation had been as expected rocky at best before him. He had pools which were 'blacks only'.
Imagine you're white, you pay increasing amounts of taxes. Your part of the city is declining and poor blacks who arent paying taxes are getting the benefits. Take from the rich, give to the poor. But you can simply leave and deprive the city of your taxes... that's the choice you make.
You then have a competing suburbs who say your taxes will go to your needs. I dont care what skin colour you are, you leave when it's so imbalanced and hostile to your needs.
So in coleman's term he went from a declining detroit into a bankrupt one and black unemployment went sky high because of his actions.
To his credit, he was always great at balancing the budget after this. He learnt what bankruptcy meant.
If I could take a Tardis to 1973, the decline of detroit was barely expected, and certainly not a set in stone reality.
Later on, Coleman tried to attract white people back to the city, but that was so impossible. To make up for his first term and pull out of bankruptcy, his taxation largely speaking targeted white businesses. Making the problem worse.
They blame texas and arizona...migrants leaving the south for the north. No idea if true, but NYC chose to be a sanctuary city? Do they not want that anymore?
Also in exactly the same way, they have tried to control the populous and have pushed everyone who paid taxes out.
Could you explain how Coleman Young caused Detroit's decline? My understanding - but maybe I am wrong - was that the decline was caused by the auto industry gradually moving production out of Detroit and into suburbs in the 1950s, causing massive unemployment among low-mobility black workers in Detroit proper in the 1960s, causing the 1967 riot, causing white and wealthy black families to flee the city, and by the time Coleman Young was elected in 1973, the city was doomed to spiral into economic and social failure.