4 ms·

The problem being written about is that the city itself has so little income and revenue that it can't provide certain basic services, and even can't necessaril

by lambda 9y ago

The problem being written about is that the city itself has so little income and revenue that it can't provide certain basic services, and even can't necessarily partner with non-profits which are trying to address problems in different ways. With a different government, tax base, and so on, Detroit as a whole may have similar problems, but the scale is different, and the larger scale likely means that there are some things Detroit can do that Highland Park cannot. I'm not sure why you think that an article about one city, Highland Park, should have been about a different city, Detroit, that while it is close by, operates at a very different scale?

dahart 9y ago
> I'm not sure why you think that an article about one city, Highland Park, should have been about a different city, Detroit, that while it is close by, operates at a very different scale? Well, I did ask the question and not state it as my opinion, didn't I? And I read the article, and already explained my take on the arguments you're making. Are you asking why, or just making a point? The Detroit native in this thread agreed that Detroit natives think of Highland Park as part of Detroit. Highland Park is entirely contained inside the Metro Detroit boundary. Use of the word "city" here is overloaded. To an outsider, Detroit is a city and Highland Park is a neighborhood within Detroit. To the Highland Park government, "city" has a technical boundary meaning that is not necessarily relevant to people outside Highland Park, and especially to people outside Michigan. I'd speculate that most people who don't live in Michigan reading an article about a city in Michigan would assume or imagine something geographically distinct from other cities, with fields in between them, as opposed to a continuous metropolitan area. My question is whether there might be some political context to the way this article is written. Do you know of any?
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Enclaves and exclaves aren't totally unheard of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclave_and_exclave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclave_and_exclave They are sort of a topic of interest/amusement, because they aren't the usual thing. Hamtramck is another city surrounded by Detroit, except for the portion that borders Highland Park.
- lambda 9y ago
  But it is a distinct city. With a separate mayor, a separate budget, and so separate issues that it has to deal with due to its budget shortfalls. Including issues with the City of Detroit being one of its creditors, due to unpaid water bills. It is not uncommon for there to be cities or towns in the metro area of other cities that are independent. For instance, Cambridge is different than Boston; or for an even closer example, Brookline which is surrounded on three sides by Boston is independent from Boston. Or Oakland is not San Francisco, nor is Almeda Oakland. Or for other examples of being completely surrounded, the Vatican is not Rome. Monaco is not France. The "technical boundary" is not irrelevant here. We're talking about different jurisdictions, with different governments, and an article about how one government is failing to provide some basic services is distinct from another government that is close by but has very different issues due to the differences of scale and available tax base. > with fields in between them, as opposed to a continuous metropolitan area. But that's not how cities work. It is very common for two cities to be part of one continuous metropolitan area, and the only way you notice the boundary is by paying very close attention to signs as you pass them. > My question is whether there might be some political context to the way this article is written. Do you know of any? I think that the context for this article is just that it's an interesting phenomenon; this small city, which grew very fast during the auto boom and has been fading slowly ever since, and now the government is so cash-strapped that it doesn't even have the personnel to work with independent non-profits to do things as basic as keeping the streetlights on, but also due to the small scale it's possible for individuals and neighborhood organizations to provide some of their own services that the city can't. The issue of "the government barely exists", as expressed in the title, is not true of Detroit as a whole. While the Detroit government does have issues of being short on funds, it is large enough that there is a recognizable government that is able to do things. But for this small city, which grew very quickly and then has slowly been fading away, the size and scale make it very hard to have a functioning government that can reasonably govern. And while the state and the federal government obviously do exist, for many of the things that ail Highland Park, the state and federal government generally work by providing grants to cities and towns, but being as cash strapped and small as this city is, it's hard for it to take advantage of programs that could bring in more revenue.

by lambda 9y ago

dahart 9y ago

> I'm not sure why you think that an article about one city, Highland Park, should have been about a different city, Detroit, that while it is close by, operates at a very different scale? Well, I did ask the question and not state it as my opinion, didn't I? And I read the article, and already explained my take on the arguments you're making. Are you asking why, or just making a point? The Detroit native in this thread agreed that Detroit natives think of Highland Park as part of Detroit. Highland Park is entirely contained inside the Metro Detroit boundary. Use of the word "city" here is overloaded. To an outsider, Detroit is a city and Highland Park is a neighborhood within Detroit. To the Highland Park government, "city" has a technical boundary meaning that is not necessarily relevant to people outside Highland Park, and especially to people outside Michigan. I'd speculate that most people who don't live in Michigan reading an article about a city in Michigan would assume or imagine something geographically distinct from other cities, with fields in between them, as opposed to a continuous metropolitan area. My question is whether there might be some political context to the way this article is written. Do you know of any?

maxerickson 9y ago
Enclaves and exclaves aren't totally unheard of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclave_and_exclave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclave_and_exclave They are sort of a topic of interest/amusement, because they aren't the usual thing. Hamtramck is another city surrounded by Detroit, except for the portion that borders Highland Park.
lambda 9y ago
But it is a distinct city. With a separate mayor, a separate budget, and so separate issues that it has to deal with due to its budget shortfalls. Including issues with the City of Detroit being one of its creditors, due to unpaid water bills. It is not uncommon for there to be cities or towns in the metro area of other cities that are independent. For instance, Cambridge is different than Boston; or for an even closer example, Brookline which is surrounded on three sides by Boston is independent from Boston. Or Oakland is not San Francisco, nor is Almeda Oakland. Or for other examples of being completely surrounded, the Vatican is not Rome. Monaco is not France. The "technical boundary" is not irrelevant here. We're talking about different jurisdictions, with different governments, and an article about how one government is failing to provide some basic services is distinct from another government that is close by but has very different issues due to the differences of scale and available tax base. > with fields in between them, as opposed to a continuous metropolitan area. But that's not how cities work. It is very common for two cities to be part of one continuous metropolitan area, and the only way you notice the boundary is by paying very close attention to signs as you pass them. > My question is whether there might be some political context to the way this article is written. Do you know of any? I think that the context for this article is just that it's an interesting phenomenon; this small city, which grew very fast during the auto boom and has been fading slowly ever since, and now the government is so cash-strapped that it doesn't even have the personnel to work with independent non-profits to do things as basic as keeping the streetlights on, but also due to the small scale it's possible for individuals and neighborhood organizations to provide some of their own services that the city can't. The issue of "the government barely exists", as expressed in the title, is not true of Detroit as a whole. While the Detroit government does have issues of being short on funds, it is large enough that there is a recognizable government that is able to do things. But for this small city, which grew very quickly and then has slowly been fading away, the size and scale make it very hard to have a functioning government that can reasonably govern. And while the state and the federal government obviously do exist, for many of the things that ail Highland Park, the state and federal government generally work by providing grants to cities and towns, but being as cash strapped and small as this city is, it's hard for it to take advantage of programs that could bring in more revenue.