Detroit Metropatterns Myron Orfield University of Minnesota Law School
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Studies Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity 1999 Detroit Metropatterns Myron Orfield University of Minnesota Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.umn.edu/imo_studies Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Myron Orfield, Detroit Metropatterns (1999). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Studies collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Detroit Metropolitics: A Regional Agenda for Community and Stability Myron Orfield A Report to the Archdiocese of Detroit January 1999 This report was a project of the Metropolitan Area Research Corporation (MARC). It was made possible with the support of the Archdiocese of Detroit, Departments of Christian Service and Parish Life, and the Detroit Province of the Society of Jesus. MARC would like to thank the following people for their comments which greatly improved the final report: Wendy Barrott, Wayne County Department of Environment, Air Quality Management Division; Al Bogdan, Wayne County Planning Division; Fr. Charles M. Morris, St. Elizabeth's Parish, Wyandotte; Brian O'Donnell, S.J., Ph.D., University of Detroit Mercy; Dr. Gary Sands, Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Wayne State University; June Thomas, Urban and Regional Planning Program, Michigan State University. Lisa Bigaouette, Mary Hagerman, Scott Laursen, and Andrea Swansby of MARC made the maps and assisted in the production of the report. Myron Orfield is MARC's president. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 1 II. The Core...................................................................................................................................... 4 A. Concentrated Poverty in the Detroit Region ........................................................................ 4 B. The Concentration Effects of Poverty .................................................................................. 6 III. The Diversity of Metropolitan Areas....................................................................................... 12 A. The Sectoral Development of American Metropolitan Areas............................................ 13 B. Local Metropolitan Subregions .......................................................................................... 14 1. The High Need Communities ....................................................................................... 15 2. The Middle-class Communities.................................................................................... 16 3. The Affluent Communities and The Favored Quarter.................................................. 16 IV. Demographic Findings............................................................................................................. 17 A. Poor Children ..................................................................................................................... 17 B. Female-Headed Households ............................................................................................... 18 C. Median Household Income................................................................................................. 20 D. Schools............................................................................................................................... 21 1. Free and Reduced-Cost Lunch...................................................................................... 22 2. Non-Asian Minority Students....................................................................................... 22 3. The Flight of White Preschool Children....................................................................... 23 E. Crime................................................................................................................................... 24 F. Infrastructure....................................................................................................................... 26 G. Sprawl and Land Use ......................................................................................................... 28 H. Fiscal Disparities................................................................................................................ 29 1. Overview....................................................................................................................... 29 2. Cities............................................................................................................................. 30 3. School Districts............................................................................................................. 33 I. Jobs ..................................................................................................................................... 34 1. The Spatial Mismatch Hypothesis................................................................................ 34 2. Jobs per Capita............................................................................................................. 34 V. Metropolitan Solutions ............................................................................................................. 35 A. Benefits of Cooperation ..................................................................................................... 35 B. The Necessity of Regional Cooperation............................................................................. 37 C. Tax-Base Sharing: The Entry Point of Regionalism .......................................................... 41 D. The Politics of Tax-Base Sharing....................................................................................... 44 1. The Twin Cities Fiscal Disparities System................................................................... 44 2. Is Tax-Base Sharing Possible Only in Minnesota?....................................................... 44 3. Political Possibilities in the Detroit Region.................................................................. 46 a. Tax-Base Sharing..................................................................................................... 46 b. The Central City Track ............................................................................................ 47 c. Future Issues ............................................................................................................ 47 VI. Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 48 Appendix A: Z-Score Calculations Used in Determining Subregions .......................................... 49 Appendix B: Hypothetical Tax-Base Sharing Runs ...................................................................... 55 Table 1: Socioeconomic Change in CDC Neighborhoods and the Metropolitan Areas In Which They are Located............................................................................................. 11 Table 2: Social and Economic Statistics for the Central City and Subregions ............................. 15 Table 3: Central City Property Value as a Percentage of Regional Value................................... 31 Table 4: Metropolitan-Detroit Cities that Declined in Tax Base per Household between 1986 and 1996 at a Greater Rate than Detroit................................................................. 32 I. Overview There is a dangerous social and economic polarization occurring in the Detroit metropolitan area.1 First, poverty and social and economic need has concentrated and is deepening in central-city neighborhoods, in older, inner suburbs southwest and north of the city, and in many outlying communities and satellite cities. These are places like Royal Oak Township, Wyandotte, Taylor, Romulus, Monroe, and Pontiac. This concentration destabilizes schools and neighborhoods, is associated with increases in crime, and results in the flight of middle-class families and businesses. As social needs accelerate in the central city, inner suburbs, and many outlying communities, the property tax base supporting local services erodes. About 40 percent of the Detroit region's population live in such a community. Second, in a related pattern, growing middle-income communities, are beginning to experience increases in their poverty and crime rates, and could well become tomorrow’s troubled suburban places, particularly those which are located in low tax base areas. These communities, which include many of the region's townships and inner Wayne and Macomb County suburbs—Warren, Dearborn, Clinton, and Canton, for example—are home to another 40 percent of the region's population. Together, Detroit, its declining inner suburbs, satellite cities, and low tax-base, middle-income communities—all places disadvantaged by regional polarization—represent over 78 percent of the region’s population. Third, upper-income residentially-exclusive communities—where only about 20 percent of the region's population live—are capturing the largest share of regional infrastructure spending, economic growth and jobs. As the property tax base expands in high property-wealth areas and their housing markets remain exclusive, these areas, primarily high tax-base communities located in Oakland County, become both socially and politically