Detroit about to file for Bankruptcy

Page 1 of 212>
July 18th, 2013 at 1:27:07 PM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
Film at 11 : http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/18/detroit-prepares-bankruptcy-filing-friday/2552819/

No massive surprise that this might happen (not to me at least).
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
July 18th, 2013 at 1:58:23 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
I'm actually surprised it doesn't happen more often. A lot of cities have tumbled down the ranks. A few that were once ranked in the top 12, and most are no longer in the top 20.

Philadelphia, PA #2 to #5
Detroit, MI #4 to #18

Baltimore, MD #2 to below #20
Boston, MA #3 to below #20
New Orleans, LA #3 to below #20
St Louis, MO #4 to below #20
Cleveland, OH #5 to below #20
Cincinnati, OH #6 to below #20
Buffalo, NY #8 to below #20
Pittsburgh, PA #8 to below #20
Washington, DC #9 to below #20
Albany, NY #9 to below #20
Providence, RI #9 to below #20
Milwaukee, WI #11 to below #20
Newark, NJ #11 to below #20
July 18th, 2013 at 2:17:59 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
How about Vegas:

The Fiscal Times, a financial news website, named Las Vegas the nations worst place to retire.

The Brookings Institution and London School of Economics list Vegas as the 5th worst economy in the world.

Vegas came in as number 55 in the top 55 smartest American cities.

Las Vegas ranks No. 1 for men in financial distress.

Vegas ranks 7th on Americas dirtiest cities list.

Also ranked 7th on Americas unhappiest cities list.

Vegas is ranked number 2 out of 50 in Americas most stressful places to live.

Last but not least, ranked 300 out of 350 in the worst cities to live in 2012. It used to be 125 before 2008.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
July 18th, 2013 at 2:29:16 PM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
Quote: Pacomartin
I'm actually surprised it doesn't happen more often. A lot of cities have tumbled down the ranks. A few that were once ranked in the top 12, and most are no longer in the top 20.

Philadelphia, PA #2 to #5
Detroit, MI #4 to #18

Baltimore, MD #2 to below #20
Boston, MA #3 to below #20
New Orleans, LA #3 to below #20
St Louis, MO #4 to below #20
Cleveland, OH #5 to below #20
Cincinnati, OH #6 to below #20
Buffalo, NY #8 to below #20
Pittsburgh, PA #8 to below #20
Washington, DC #9 to below #20
Albany, NY #9 to below #20
Providence, RI #9 to below #20
Milwaukee, WI #11 to below #20
Newark, NJ #11 to below #20


In size?
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
July 18th, 2013 at 3:21:30 PM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
Bankruptcy is like sheep dip... its purpose is to cleanse but it is a process that stinks to high heaven itself, so no good can come of it.
July 18th, 2013 at 6:21:34 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: TheCesspit
In size?

In size by population rank.

For instance Philadelphia was #2 from 1790-1820, #3 in 1830, #4 in 1840-1850, and #2 from 1860-1880,#3 from 1890-1950, #4 from 1960-1980, and #5 from 1990-2010. So I said Philadelphia went from a high of #2 to a low of #5. It isn't a perfect system, as Philadelphia city merged with Philadelphia county in 1855, which accounted for it jumping back up to #2.

NYC has always been the largest city in the nation, but NYC was just Manhattan until 1898 when it merged with four other counties.

Detroit went from 465,766 to 993,078 people between 1910 and 1920 and up to 1,849,568 by 1950. Detroit was #4 (4th largest city by population) from 1920-1940. In the 2010 census the city had a population of 713,777 and it is though to be losing at least 6000 per year.

I'm not sure what is harder. Doubling your population over a decade, or losing half your population over half a century.
July 18th, 2013 at 7:00:04 PM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
Doubling over a decade might add burdens to schools, courts, etc but a fifty year drain on population might well just mean the young wandered off elsewhere so you get an aging population with a tax roll that is depleted of any real vigor.
July 18th, 2013 at 8:25:01 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: Fleastiff
Doubling over a decade might add burdens to schools, courts, etc but a fifty year drain on population might well just mean the young wandered off elsewhere so you get an aging population with a tax roll that is depleted of any real vigor.


In the "Great Migration" from 1916 and 1930, an estimated one million Black Southerners migrated to northern cities seeking more rights from the north

In 1910, the Black population of the city of Detroit numbered only 5,741, a mere one percent of the total population. By 1920, the number of African-American residents had grown to 40,838, with most of the increase coming after 1917. This number would double again before the end of the decade, when African-Americans came to comprise 7.7 percent of the entire Detroit population. Now it is 82.7% of the population.

In addition to doubling the population, the physical acreage of the city also doubled between 1910 and 1920. So I suppose many of the people who lived there were formerly in Wayne county, and now were in the city.

1900 #13: 285,704
1910 #9: 465,766 (26K acres)
1920 #4: 993,078 (50K acres)
1930 #4: 1,568,662 (88K acres)
1940 #4: 1,623,452 (88K acres)

Present day: 89K acres

Detroit physical growth by annexation


But I think people just didn't expect that much a hundred years ago. If you were a single man, I imagine most considered themselves lucky to have a room with a bed, and they ate on the streets and used a toilet in the back yard.
July 18th, 2013 at 9:01:41 PM permalink
whatme
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 0
Posts: 21
Quote: Pacomartin

NYC has always been the largest city in the nation, but NYC was just Manhattan until 1898 when it merged with four other counties.


FYI NYC didn't exist untill the merger.

Manhattan was nothing compared to the city of Brooklyn at the time of the merger.
July 18th, 2013 at 9:34:47 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: whatme
FYI NYC didn't exist untill the merger.

Manhattan was nothing compared to the city of Brooklyn at the time of the merger.


I don't think that is true at all. Manna-hata, was written in the 1609 logbook. New Netherland began in 1624 with the founding of a Dutch fur trading settlement on Governors Island. In 1625, construction was started on a citadel and a Fort Amsterdam on Manhattan Island, later called New Amsterdam. In 1664, the English conquered "New Netherland" and renamed it "New York".

Brooklyn had a population of 4.4K in the 1810 census while NYC had almost 100K people. At the time of the merger New York had double the population of Brooklyn.

Manhattan's population in 1890 was 1.52 million, and it was 1.59 million in 2010. Of course in 1890 the only way to get into Manhattan was the Brooklyn bridge or by ferry. The Manhattan Bridge and the Queensboro Bridge opened in 1909, and commercial service from NJ by train started at midnight on February 26, 1908 when the tunnels were finished after 17 years of construction, and over 3 decades of planning.
Page 1 of 212>