While I will not defend Detroits governmental management, the above statement is ideological tripe more than reality. No one will stand here and defend detroit's government, but to claim detroit is where it is simply because of tax and social policy shows complete and utter ignorance.
Detroit grew to the size it was due to one thing, Auto Industry, the scope and scale of that industry is unfathonable to most people, and when it decentralized and globalized, Detroit had no direction to go but down. No city, no matter how well managed could survive the scale of collapse that Detroit has seen or would have seen even if supurbly managed.
Pittsburgh is an example, at its peak in the 50s the city had a population of 600kish people, its been in decline since then, now the population of the city proper is closer to 300k. that's a 50% fall in 50 years, and the city has been able to adapt, its not perfect, but its adapted, its not completely overrun with abandoned homes (though they certainly are there).. Now lets look at detroit..
Detroit has lost more than 50% of its population as well, from a peak of 1.9 Million in the 1950s, its now less 900,000.. The scope of that decline is unfathonable. 900,000 people, in 50 years. Add that to the decline of wealth that the city built to support 2 Million, has to deal with with less than 1 million people left. Think about it, just assume you have 4 people per housing unit, that means there are 250,000 housing units that have been abandoned in the past 50 years, 5,000 housing units a year just abandoned... Now, given it takes years for these abandoned properties to be foreclosed for back taxes and costs to deal with it, and using a baseline of $7500 to actually demolish the structure, lets say it averages out at 10,000 per house to get it demolished, thats, $50,000,000 a year just to demolish abandoned homes!! $50 Million a year just to keep up with home demolition which is outrageous and of course no city much less one in decline can keep up, because the fall has depleted the economies of scale the city once had. The more the city loses people the worse the cost per resident becomes, because you have 1/2 the people spread out over what was an entire cities area, etc etc etc.
You can't solve these scopes of issues by simply cutting taxes and lowering spending, those things in and of themselves cannot save Detroit and its utterly ignorant to suggest it will.
Again, no one will defend how Detroit has been managed, however no management no matter its ideological center would have prevented Detroits collapse, the city was destined to pass the tipping point based on factors far beyond its control. The best management in the world would have only slowed the inevitable, it could not have prevented it.
And yet the Suburbs thrive. Why? Because they get fairly priced services and feel safe and secure?
that to the decline of wealth that the city built to support 2 Million, has to deal with with less than 1 million people left.
People vote with their feet. The middle class felt that the City did not care about them so they left. They saw unwed mothers getting subsidized rent, electricity, and health care all on their dime.
Detroit in the 1950's had the BEST school system in the country. Now 25% will graduate. The DFT is the Number 1 employer in the City of Detroit. Since they are obviously not educating children what are they doing?
You can't solve these scopes of issues by simply cutting taxes and lowering spending, those things in and of themselves cannot save Detroit and its utterly ignorant to suggest it will.
Has it EVER been tried? NO. Income tax rates for Residents (when I lived there)was 2.5%. For all of the first ring suburbs it is 0%. Hmmmm. Suburbs growing, 0% income tax; Detroit dying 2.5% income tax.
Why in God's name would I choose to live in an over taxed, under served City with the worst education system in the country and pay 2.5% of my income to do it?
In the rational pursuit of self-interest I voted with my feet and left in disgust.