The (Intentional) Shrinking of Detroit

How does one run a city which has been shrinking for decades?

In 1950, Detroit had a population of about 1.8 million (and the highest per-capita income in the United States). Today, it has fallen to 900,000. Contrary to popular perception, many of the city’s neighborhoods enjoy a stable population. But others are largely abandoned, dominated by empty lots and abandoned buildings—and dotted with occasional residents.

To make matters worse, the city government faces a severe financial crisis. Detroit must spend scarce funds to provide police, fire, garbage, road maintenance, utilities and other services to mostly-empty neighborhoods—many with little near-term hope of recovery. This diverts needed money from the city’s strongest neighborhoods.

Mayor Dave Bing—a successful businessman and NBA Hall of Famer—has a new agenda for the city: focus resources on the most populated and successful areas, direct as many residents as possible into those places, and let the others go. In other words, he is working to downsize Detroit in order to meet the current reality.

Many people interested in urban issues have urged Detroit to do just that. In most ways, it makes sense; it is difficult to imagine that Detroit will ever be a city of 1.8 million again, so the city government must focus on serving a smaller population as well as possible. But implementation can be challenging. On the one hand, there are many dilapidated structures in neighborhoods with almost no market demand; it is certainly wise to demolish them. And it seems wise to focus needed school closures on the most desolate neighborhoods.

More aggressive initiatives, however, will meet significant challenges. The city can certainly offer cash incentives or land swaps to encourage people to leave certain areas—so long as it has the resources to do so. But what happens when some people do not want to leave? According to the mayor, "If they stay where they are I absolutely cannot give them all the services they require”. Yet it is difficult to imagine that a city could legally deny basic services to people living within its jurisdiction. It may be possible to force people to leave by eminent domain, but that could prove legally and politically challenging, particularly in the post-Kelo era.

Some critics view the initiative with alarm. Indeed, there are clear parallels to the Urban Renewal period, when desperate local governments destroyed many poor and working-class neighborhoods throughout the United States. While much of this was well-intentioned, the results were generally disastrous. Urban Renewal made a bad situation worse, both for struggling cities and for the citizens it attempted to help.

Detroit should shrink—consciously, cautiously, and with humility. They must take extreme measures, yet avoid the mistakes of the past. It may be easy to give up on Detroit. Fortunately, some people have not done so.