Six crazy ideas for saving Detroit

Sigh ...

 

Jay, Vermont, is trying method to expand Jay Peak: foreign investment for green cards.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/us/31vermont.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

You have to invest 500,000 to the project for a chance at citizenship.

The project would cost $865 million and create 10,000 jobs.

Could this be expanded on a much-larger scale for Detroit?

 

I'm not sure what the impact would be of such a large measure of post-apocalyptic ruins, but ... does Detroit need to be saved? There are all sorts of smaller cities that were once great and are now just old small towns. If you're ever doing one of those Sporcle quizzes about populations through time, Lowell, Mass., is always a good guess.

I guess you can't just cut the entire city off from all services, but by all appearances it's a sinkhole as an investment and will remain one forever.

 

It's a port. It has some geographical value.

 

The idea that was floated awhile back to cut the city limits back to where they were 50-60 years ago makes some sense. Get smaller and sell off the land.

 

Please, detail the accomplishments of the New Deal to me.

 

Yeah that's why the French stopped there in the 1700s. I get that. What I don't get is the idea that there needs to be billions of dollars sent that way in a fashion that isn't likely to work. What's the goal?

 

I basically agree that we shouldn't spend billions to "save" Detroit, or Flint, or Newark, or Gary.

(Article in today's Times about Newark: nyti.ms/1bTeg3m

But, there's nothing wrong with actually letting free market principles have a crack at it. Why not turn it into the most pro-business city in America?

 

How about you tell me how it did not work?

 

Because the pro-Union approach is working so well?

 

And your idea?

 

You made the claim. It's on you.

You're a brilliant teacher, with three degrees. This should be easy for you.