Historically, Detroit’s nine City Council members have been elected at-large; that is, each of them represents the city as a whole rather than a particular district. However, Detroit’s new City [...]]]> by Gregory Parrish – Technical Manager at D3
Contributing D3 Team: Louis Bach, Drew Gordon, Kat Hartman, Rob Linn, Clay Martin & Kurt Metzger

Historically, Detroit’s nine City Council members have been elected at-large; that is, each of them represents the city as a whole rather than a particular district. However, Detroit’s new City Charter, which took effect on January 1, 2012, changes the way that Council members are elected. Under the new Charter, only two members are elected at-large, and seven members are elected by district. Council members are required to live within the district that they represent.

Interactive District Options Map:

The new Charter directs City Council to establish those districts’ boundaries. On January 20th, the City Planning Commission released four map options to the Council. That day, Rochelle Riley at the Free Press published the maps, accompanied by comments from Charles Pugh. On January 23rd, the maps were presented to City Council by City Planning Commission staff, the City Clerk and Department of Elections, and Research and Analysis Division staff. On February 3rd, we released the D3 proposed Option 5 District Plan.

The initial 4 proposed district boundary plans were drafted based on simple legal requirements outlined in the Charter: districts must be contiguous, compact, and of roughly equal population.[1] They must also avoid splitting minorities, according to the federal Voting Rights Act.

Those criteria are necessary to satisfy a legal challenge, but they are not sufficient to ensure that the district boundaries will not harm neighborhoods or local communities. They offer no answer to important questions, including:

1. Are any neighborhoods or historic areas split between two or more districts? If so, residents and community organizations must rely on multiple Council members to represent their neighborhood. That makes it more difficult to hold any single member responsible for that neighborhood issues.

2. Are any neighborhoods grouped into districts with distant or dissimilar neighborhoods? If so, the focus of that district’s Council member will be divided between neighborhoods with significantly different interests and concerns.

3. Are any place-based long-term public or private investment areas split between two or more districts?If so, businesses, investors, and government programs must rely on multiple Council members to support their interests. Splitting investment areas makes impact more complex, difficult, and harder to demonstrate.

The table compares the total number of split neighborhoods, historic districts and community development service areas in each of the City Council District Plan options.

 

The Process and Problems Behind the Planning Commission’s Four Options

The methods used to create the proposed district boundaries did not address any of those potential problems. Indeed, the Research and Analysis Division stated in a memo that they deliberately chose not to consider neighborhoods when creating district boundaries:

Pursuant to the [Home Rule City] Act, the apportionment plan must provide for districts that “are nearly of equal population as is practicable and contiguous and compact.” In drawing the district maps these were the only criteria utilized. [Emphasis added.]

The City Planning Commission methodology for developing its four options featured the following:

• Legal guidance from the Research and Analysis Division
• The choice to draw districts whose boundaries conform to those of election precincts (as established by the Department of Elections)
• The use of “neighborhoods” from the city’s Master Plan as a proxy for neighborhood boundaries
• The use of dot-density maps of ethnic minority populations, in order to avoid splitting minorities.
• “Horizontal” districts (whose boundaries run primarily east-west) in Option 1; “Vertical” districts (whose boundaries run primarily north-south) in Option 2; and “hybrid” districts in Options 3 and 4.

The Planning Commission’s choice to draw district boundaries along the boundaries of election precincts is not based on any legal requirement, and it carries several significant disadvantages:

• It has a significant negative impact on the compactness of proposed districts. The Commission’s four options have boundaries that “zig-zag” and appear jagged.
• It has a significant negative impact on the evenness of districts’ population apportionment. Districts’ populations tend to deviate more than necessary (see the Population Matrix.) While the four options still fall within the legal range of total deviation (11.9%), substantial deviations are at odds with the principle of representational balance: “one person, one vote.”
• Precincts are administrative areas whose boundaries bear little relation to neighborhood boundaries. Any proposal whose district boundaries conform to precincts is virtually guaranteed to split neighborhoods between multiple districts.

There is a viable alternative to using election precincts in this way. Census blocks are finer-grained than precincts, both in terms of population and in terms of geographic size. The average population in Detroit for a precinct is 1468 people while a block is 44 people. That means that they can be used to produce districts whose populations are more evenly distributed and whose boundaries are less jagged. They have the additional advantage of conforming more readily to major “breaks” in our city: freeways, major streets, and rail lines.

Furthermore, the “neighborhoods” in the city’s Master Plan are, like the precincts drawn by the Department of Elections, administrative in nature; they are only vaguely related to what most Detroiters would identify as neighborhoods. Lastly, the Commission’s choice to draw districts that are arbitrarily “horizontal” or “vertical” limits those districts’ compactness.

As a result, all of the four districting options currently on the table suffer from at least one instance of the three critical flaws listed above. Here are a few of the most visible:

Option 1 puts a district border along Michigan Avenue, splitting the Corktown neighborhood. It also combines Downtown and the Lower Eastside into one district, throwing together radically different parts of the city.

Option 2 splits the Warrendale neighborhood, splits the Grandmont-Rosedale neighborhood, and splits the Corktown neighborhood. It divides the East Jefferson Corridor investment area and splits the Lower Eastside Action Plan area. Finally, it includes a district that runs from 8 Mile Road to the Detroit River, throwing together neighborhoods on opposite ends of the city.

Option 3 splits the Russell Woods neighborhood. It splits the twin neighborhoods of Indian Village and West Village, making it more difficult for them to collaborate. It divides the East Jefferson Corridor investment area and splits the Lower Eastside Action Plan area. Finally, it splits Downtown along Brush Street, forcing residents of both the Southwest side and the Near Eastside to share their respective Council members with Downtown interests.

Option 4 splits Downtown along Brush Street, forcing residents of both the Southwest side and the Lower Eastside to share their respective Council members with Downtown interests.

D3’s goal is not to simply enumerate the problems with each option. Instead, we’ve set out to draw an alternative district map, one that respects the boundaries of all of Detroit’s neighborhoods and investment areas.

 

Building a Better District Map

D3 has developed a different district map, Option 5, using the following methodology:

• We divided districts only along significant geographic cleavages: major roads, freeways, and railroads.
• We used the simplest unit of population measurement, the Census block. Census blocks are made available by the federal Census Bureau specifically for the purpose of redistricting.
• We made every effort to avoid splitting neighborhoods, historic neighborhoods, community development areas, or targeted investment areas.

We call our result Option 5: the Neighborhood Option. It is less divisive, more compact, and more nearly equal in population than Options 1 through 4.

Detroit Free Press Graphic of the D3 Option 5 Council by Districts Plan.

The Next Step

Make your voice heard! The City Council is hosting three more public meetings about the district maps:

– Monday, February 6, 7:00 PM at Second Ebenezer Church, 14601 Dequindre Road

– Tuesday, February 7, 7:00 PM at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Hall, 1358 Abbott St (enter on Porter side)

– Friday, February 10, 2:00 PM at St. Maron Center, 11466 Kercheval St

If you have any questions about the meetings, please contact the City Planning Commission at 313-224-6225 or the City Council Research and Analysis Division at 313-224-4946.

Other Resources:

Check out our City Council Elections by District Resource Page on our website
Includes maps of demographics

Cleveland has both a regional transit authority and bus rapid transit.

Light rail in Detroit faces an uncertain future. After years of planning and almost $100 million in dedicated funding from the Kresge Foundation, its M1 Rail partners, and the federal government, Mayor Dave Bing and [...]]]> by Clay Martin – Research Analyst at D3

Cleveland has both a regional transit authority and bus rapid transit.

Light rail in Detroit faces an uncertain future. After years of planning and almost $100 million in dedicated funding from the Kresge Foundation, its M1 Rail partners, and the federal government, Mayor Dave Bing and Governor Rick Snyder announced in December that the M1 Rail project was canceled. In its place they proposed a bus rapid transit (BRT) system for southeast Michigan. In early January, they changed their position and stated that light rail was still possible in Detroit, although with a significantly shorter route. (A few days later, M1 Rail executive Matt Cullen indicated that the “light rail” would actually be a streetcar.) The shorter Woodward light rail/streetcar line will operate in conjunction with the new BRT system, though more changes to the transit plan may occur.

While the notion of rapid bus service may be unfamiliar to our region, it is worthwhile to consider the feasibility and desirability of a regional BRT system under the management of a dedicated regional transit authority (RTA). After all, legislation was recently introduced in Lansing to create an RTA and BRT does have certain advantages over its rail-bound counterpart. It is less expensive, with light rail costs per-mile between 150% and 5,000% greater than BRT, depending on the extent to which BRT elements such as grade-separated lanes are implemented [2]. And, if done right, it can be a genuinely rapid form of transit. One comparison of BRT and light rail systems found that five out of six BRT systems had higher average operating speeds than light rail. [3]

Click To Enlarge

Despite this, transit advocates in southeast Michigan have every reason to be skeptical. After all, the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) bus system cut nearly a quarter of its service in December in the face of reduced revenue from property taxes and its inability to renegotiate union contracts. Even before the cuts, fully 41 percent of suburban Detroit communities voted to opt-out of SMART, preferring to forgo bus service rather than pay a .59 millage. [3]

Many will read in these numbers a story familiar to southeast Michigan, a persistent inability to cooperate as a region in order to achieve planning goals, whether they are related to land-use, water and the environment, or transportation issues. Is there any reason to believe that a new RTA would be able to garner any more “buy-in” across southeast Michigan than SMART? At this point, any answer to this question would be purely speculative. So here’s another question: would a new RTA need to garner more regional support than SMART already does? Do the Detroit suburbs that currently opt-in to SMART form a geographically coherent and financially sustainable service area for a regional transit authority on their own? In other words, if we limit our attention to those communities that currently support a regional public transit system, do we still have the makings of a viable BRT service area for southeast Michigan?

Back to Basics – Do we have a coherent transit service area in our region?

To begin, we need to decide what “coherent” means when applied to a regional transit service area. To do so, flash back to high school geometry, where we learned that areas can be classified as “convex” or “non-convex.” In a convex area, you can draw a straight line between any two points within the area without leaving the area. Convex shapes don’t have kinks along their edges, and they don’t have holes. American cheese is convex; swiss cheese is not. See Figure 1.

Figure 1. In a convex area, you can draw a straight line between any two points within the area without leaving the area.

Let’s call a transit service area coherent to the extent that it is convex. American cheese is coherent, Swiss cheese less so, and Swiss cheese with a bite out of it is least coherent of all. Now consider Map 1, which shows the communities in southeast Michigan that currently opt-in to SMART bus service, as well as Detroit, which opts-out but still receives service. We will restrict our attention to these communities, and consider their potential to support regional transit service. These communities do form a fairly coherent transit service area. With the exceptions of Bloomfield Hills, Lathrup Village, and Orchard Lake Village, there are few holes in the area. And with the exception of Walled Lake to the west, all communities are connected to all other communities in the area. That is, you don’t have to leave the service area to get from one community to another. While it would be nice if the other 41% of suburban communities opted-in to the system, at least they are largely located on the fringe of the tri-county region. A pattern in which many inner-ring suburbs opted-out and many outer-ring suburbs opted-in would be much less coherent.

Map 1. SMART Service Area, Detroit Tri-County Region: Opt-in and opt-out communities.

Unfortunately, geographic coherence is not enough to ensure a viable transit system. (Your high school geometry teacher might call it necessary but not sufficient.) In addition to coherence, the communities that make up a service area must also be relatively dense (geographically speaking) and fiscally sound.  Table 1 lists the minimum housing and employment densities required to sustain light rail, bus rapid transit, and conventional, less frequent bus service. [5] The theory behind Table 1 is fairly straightforward. More expensive systems, such as light rail and BRT, require more customers, and hence higher population densities, to be viable.

To understand what Table 1 means, let’s use it to estimate the commuters per stop needed to support conventional buses and BRT in Detroit. For this purpose, I’ll define a regular commuter as someone who has worked fifteen or more hours per week for forty or more weeks in the previous year. There are 196,301 such commuters in Detroit, or 0.53 per household. [6] If we define a bus stop’s market as households within a half mile of the stop, then we would conclude from Table 1 that 800 regular commuters per stop would support conventional bus service, while 1,600 per stop would be required to support BRT. While this back-of-the-envelope calculation may help us visualize the densities involved, we point out below that density requirements apply to the entire corridor, not to individual stops.

At the time of this writing, we did not have employment numbers for the Detroit region, but in Map 2 we have classified areas according to which mode of transit their population densities would support.

Map 2. Viable Transit Modes in the SMART Service Area: Proposed BRT and frequency of bus services.

Before we look at this map in detail, a trio of caveats is in order. First, density requirements apply to transit corridors as a whole, not to the block group level, which we have mapped here. As a result, we cannot conclude from this map that an entire corridor is unsuitable for a certain transit mode simply because it contains block groups with unsuitable densities. For example, the Woodward Corridor may very well be suitable for bus rapid transit, and even light rail, despite the fact that some areas along the corridor lack the density to support these modes.  Second, certain areas which are primarily industrial or commercial, such as stretches of Gratiot Avenue in Detroit, will appear to not be viable transit corridors when considered only from the perspective of population density. This is not necessarily the case. Minimum densities apply to the entire transit corridor, and they include employment as well as population densities. Areas that appear to be sparsely populated may very well contribute to the viability of a transit corridor by serving as places of employment. Finally, the following maps only provide a static portrait of the region; they do not reflect the potential for BRT to catalyze growth and encourage higher density along corridors in the future.

With these caveats in mind, we can see from Map 2 that the proposed BRT lines follow some of the most viable corridors in the Detroit region. While densities that support light rail, and even BRT, are currently limited to central Detroit, Hamtramck, the Woodward corridor, and a few scattered areas north of Eight Mile, there are many areas on the cusp of being viable BRT service areas. Only one or two extra housing units per acre would provide the density these areas need to support BRT.

Unfortunately, most growth is currently occurring on the fringe of the tri-county region. From Map 3, we see that “Opt-Out” areas and areas in the far northeastern reaches of the SMART service area have experienced the most growth over the last decade. The majority of areas in Detroit and its inner ring suburbs have actually lost population over the same period. Opponents of regional public transit will point to this as evidence that public transit, whether BRT or light rail, is destined to be under-utilized and unsustainable. Proponents will point out that the Detroit region is at a critical inflection point. It can either continue to grow outwards, away from the city and into an auto-centric oblivion, or it can take this opportunity to invest in a system that will lure residents back to Detroit and its inner-ring suburbs.

 

Map 3 Percent Population Change in the Tri-County REgionn between 2000 and 210

So far, we have only looked at whether or not the Detroit region can support a BRT system. From another perspective, we can ask how best a public transit system, BRT or otherwise, can support the Detroit region. In particular, we can ask how a system can connect the least mobile residents of southeast Michigan to jobs throughout the region. Map 4 shows the distribution of households that could benefit most from a viable transit system, those households that do not have access to an automobile. We can see that while auto-mobility is enjoyed by the vast majority of suburban Detroit households, there is a concentration of households in Detroit that do not have access to private transportation. The proposed BRT system could connect these areas to jobs.

Map 4. Households WIthout Access To A Vehicle in the SMART Service Area.

Let’s Get Moving

It is not our intention in this article to takes sides in the light rail versus BRT debate. But Map 4 does remind us that for many residents of southeast Michigan, a viable transit system is crucial to access jobs, healthcare, and other essential services. No matter what form the region’s future transit system takes, we need to get moving.

D3_MapPacket_BRTandRTA

[1] Levinson, H., Zimmerman, S., et al. “Bus Rapid Transit: An Overview” Journal of Public    Transportation. 5 (2) 2002

[2] U.S. General Accounting Office. “Bus Transit: Bus Rapid Transit show promise” 2001

[2] Ibid.

[4] Accessed online at http://www.smartbus.org/riderguide/smartservices/communitytransit.

[5] Lee County Bus Rapid Transit Feasibility Study: Final Report. Accessed online at http://www.rideleetran.com/pdfs/Lee%20BRT%20Final%20Report_042808.pdf

[6] American Community Survey, 2006-2010.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

The article misstated the city of Detroit’s status in the SMART service area. It stated that Detroit was an opt-in community in the SMART system; Detroit is actually an opt-out community that receives service. D3 regrets the error.

The D4 survey of food retailers with EBT and liquor licenses in Detroit revealed a "substantial percentage of stores with severe food violations..."

In the September 2011 edition of our newsletter, we debunked the myth that Detroit [...]]]> by Kat Hartman – Research Analyst at D3
& Louis Bach – Communications Team at D3

The D4 survey of food retailers with EBT and liquor licenses in Detroit revealed a "substantial percentage of stores with severe food violations..."

In the September 2011 edition of our newsletter, we debunked the myth that Detroit has no grocery stores within its city limits. That claim has been cited to support the assertion that Detroit is a food desert (an area in which healthy food is prohibitively expensive or outright unavailable.) We found that 115 grocery stores operate within the city limits. However, our analysis was limited to data that included only addresses, so we were unable to measure the current quality of food that stores offer, an important part of the food-accessibility issue.

On January 19^th, the Detroit community came one step closer to addressing the question of food quality. This was accomplished through the development of a new data set, based on a survey of 207 food retailers in Detroit. The Good Food, Good Jobs Coalition of Doing Development Differently in Detroit (D-4) hosted a summit at COLORS and the offices of the Restaurant Opportunities Center (ROC) to highlight the release of its report on food safety in Detroit stores with both liquor and food stamp licenses.[1]

Data Driven Detroit (D3) provided technical assistance for the report by supplying analysis, maps, and data visualizations of the survey data collected by survey volunteers. D3’s Director, Kurt Metzger, was on hand Thursday to help present the study’s findings. The report revealed a two-tiered food retail environment:

Top-tier retailers make sufficient efforts to ensure the cleanliness and safety of their establishments, facilitating trust and positive relations with the community… low-tier retailers are characterized by unsafe, expired, or dangerous food products in an unsanitary environment, putting consumers and the public at risk.

The report found that 36% of stores had zero food violations and 27% of stores had zero sanitation violations, underlining the fact that it is possible to offer high quality meat and produce while running a successful store in Detroit. The low-tier stores, in comparison, featured a variety of violations: 7% of stores surveyed were responsible for 30% of the total food safety violations that were recorded. In addition, 38% of total stores sold expired food, the most common food-safety violation; 56% had dirty floors, the most common sanitation violation. In conclusion, the report found that “a minority of extreme low-tier establishments are having an outsize impact on the problem of food safety and sanitation in the city of Detroit.” (For more information, see the report.)

The Summit was attended by 250 members and leaders of the Detroit community, including US Congressman Hansen Clarke and State Representative Rashida Tlaib, and Detroit City Council Members Andrew Spivey and Brenda Jones. Representative Tlaib announced that she would introduce legislation allowing local and state governments to consider an establishment’s record of compliance with basic food safety and workplace standards when deciding whether to grant, renew, suspend, or revoke an establishment’s liquor licenses. Detroit City Council Members Andre Spivey, Ken Cockrel, and Brenda Jones are working with the Coalition to draft similar legislation for the City of Detroit.

As Detroit works to understand and solve its own problems, the development of new data sets will be essential. Primary data collection and analysis can be expensive and time consuming tasks, but the Good Food, Good Jobs report illustrates the importance and value of new data sets. Without the Coalition’s original research, the Detroit community would still have limited empirical basis to judge the severity of the local food-quality issue. Relying solely on personal testimony limits our efforts to understand and improve our situation.  In order to move policy and government forward both personal narratives and data-driven research are necessary. As Detroit moves forward, D3 is committed to assisting community organizations ensure that their survey methodologies are statistically sound, and to provide them with sound data analysis and presentation services.

Data Driven Detroit (D3) has finished our 2011 Annual Report, “Positives & Negatives: Finding a Balanced Approach through Data.” In addition to summarizing our activities over the past year, the Report also compiles essential statistics into a resource that we hope you will reference throughout the 2012. The year following a Census is always [...]]]>

Data Driven Detroit (D3) has finished our 2011 Annual Report, “Positives & Negatives: Finding a Balanced Approach through Data.” In addition to summarizing our activities over the past year, the Report also compiles essential statistics into a resource that we hope you will reference throughout the 2012. The year following a Census is always an important one. The results of this survey inevitably create waves that impact every level of geography, from city block to nation. The results from the 2010 Census, which were released in 2011, illustrated unprecedented changes in Detroit, across our region, and throughout the State. According to the new Census numbers, Michigan was the only state in the country to lose population over the decade.  The City of Detroit experienced one of its largest percentage losses in residents over the last 6 decades. Arguably, both positive and negative trends have emerged from the 2010 Census results.  It is essential that we as a region process them honestly and find a balanced, equitable approach to moving forward.

We at D3 believe that the region must work together to develop a common narrative that respects our diverse histories, while also establishing a new set of shared experiences. Our ability to do so successfully requires that we first understand our metropolis objectively and then act in agreement on that common knowledge. We believe that the most direct path to objective consensus is through data. D3 has brought together twelve months of demographic maps and visualizations, using our extensive library of data sets, to provide a common understanding of our region as we build our future together.

Download the digital version of the 2011 Annual Report here

Today, November 8th 2011, registered voters in Detroit will decide whether or not to approve a revised city charter. Among other things, the new charter is intended to establish a city council by districts, strengthen measures against waste and fraud in city government, require the mayor [...]]]> by Clay Martin – Research Analyst at D3

Today, November 8^th 2011, registered voters in Detroit will decide whether or not to approve a revised city charter. Among other things, the new charter is intended to establish a city council by districts, strengthen measures against waste and fraud in city government, require the mayor to attend community meetings, require a feasibility assessment for a Detroit automobile and property insurance system, and promote sustainability initiatives. The changes are controversial enough that two groups, Citizens for Detroit’s Future and the Democratic Open Government Caucus of the Michigan Democratic Party, have registered with the City Clerk’s office to challenge voters’ eligibility and the conduct of election officials. [1]

Even though the new charter would implement significant changes in local government, the challenge of engaging citizens enough to vote on this local issue is also likely to be significant. We at Data Driven Detroit (D3) have been combing through voter data from the last 10 years and, based on turnout in previous local, non-mayoral elections, are estimating an 8.5% voter turnout on the charter issue.  We do hope that the number will be higher on this important issue; however we want to take this as an opportunity to share our data with you as well as the precedents we studied to determine this estimate.

To begin with, voter turnout in Detroit has been described as “disgraceful” and worse. [2] D3 wanted to go beyond the hand wringing and uncover the patterns behind previous elections. To do so, we abided by a few basic principles.

Principle 1: All Elections Are Not Equal

For the purposes of turnout prediction, Detroit elections can be placed into seven categories:

1)      National presidential elections

2)      Off year, non-presidential state general elections

3)      Mayoral elections

4)      Mayoral primaries

5)      State primaries

6)      National primaries

7)      Local, non-mayoral primaries

As you can see in Figure 1, turnout declines from categories 1 to 7. [3] Of course, some elections stubbornly refuse to abide by this rule. Kwame Kilpatrick’s reelection in 2005 so ignited Detroit voters that turnout was above the average for state general elections. Conversely, Detroit voters showed little interest in George Bush’s 2004 reelection bid, voting as if it were an off year. Today’s election falls firmly within category 7, so despite these outliers, we expect turnout in local, non-mayoral elections to be in the 8 to 10 percent range.

Figure 1

Principle 2: All Voters Are Not Equal

One person, one vote, is the cornerstone of democracy. And yet, some eligible voters consistently choose to exercise the franchise more often than others. As Figure 2 shows, women in Detroit consistently vote at higher rates than men. In all but two categories, the lowest turnout election for women is higher than the highest turnout for men. The only elections where this is not true (indicated by the overlap of boxplots) are the Kilpatrick reelection in 2005 and the Obama election in 2008. The gender gap is not particular to Detroit, and scholars have offered several explanations, ranging from increased literacy among female voters to higher rates of incarceration among men. [4]

Figure 2

Voter age also matters. Figure 3 shows dramatic differences in turnout among voters 18 to 35, 35 to 55, and 55 and older across all election types. Again, the only elections where we see overlap among groups are the 2005 Kilpatrick reelection and the 2008 Obama election, which saw record participation among young voters, both locally and across the country. For the purpose of predicting today’s election, notice that turnout in local, non-mayoral elections is driven largely by voters 55 and older.

Figure 3

Principle 3: All Neighborhoods Are Not Equal

High turnout voters tend to live close to other high turnout voters. This is evident from a quick look at Figures 4, 5, and 6, which show the distribution of voter turnout in the 2007 school board election, the 2009 mayoral election, and the 2010 state general election. The most interesting feature of these maps is that they all look basically the same: some areas turnout in high numbers in election after election, and others do not.  Investigating the reason why this is the case will take the remainder of this column.

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

The literature on voter turnout and its correlation to socioeconomic and demographic indicators is vast. We have sifted through that literature to bring you four indicators that are particularly relevant to Detroit neighborhoods: 1)the poverty rate, 2)homeowner occupancy,3) the percent of residents with at least a high school degree, and 4)the percent of residents who have moved in the last year. We will see how each of these variables influenced turnout in the 2009 mayoral election.

A Short Note on the Plots

It is important to note that each of the following plots is actually three separate plots combined. Each dot represents a single block group or tract and age group. As a result, each block group or tract is represented by three separate dots, a red dot (55 and older), a green dot (35 to 55), and a blue dot (18 to 35). In addition, we have drawn lines of best fit that correspond to each age group and an overall line of best fit (brown) that is drawn using data from all age groups. The light band around each line of best fit indicates the standard error. The band narrows as the estimate becomes more confident. If you can count really, really fast, you may have noticed that each plot only has 300 dots, whereas there are 297 tracts and over 1,000 block groups in Detroit. If each tract or block-group is represented with three dots, there should be at least 891 dots per plot. What gives? Well, while the lines of best fits are drawn using data from all tracts or block-groups, we only plotted a random sample of 100 tract or block-groups to avoid clutter.

Voting and Poverty

There are at least two schools of thought on the relationship between voter turnout and poverty. One holds that economic hardship increases voter turnout as voters look to the ballot box as a means of redress. The other points out that voting costs in both time and money, and the least well off are least able to afford such costs. [5] [6] Figure 7 suggests that voter turnout by census tract declines as poverty rates increase for all age groups. The most dramatic decrease occurs as poverty rates increase from zero to 40%; after that, turnout continues to decline with poverty, but at a much lower rate.

Figure 7

Voting and Migration

Moving can have a large impact on whether or not someone votes. In addition to the costs of moving, voters must navigate a new set of deadlines and requirements in order to re-register.  As a result, people who have recently moved are less likely to vote than their stationary counterparts, despite espousing a similar interest in politics and an equally strong conviction that they should have a say in who governs.  It has been estimated that turnout in national elections would increase by nine percent if the effect of mobility were removed. [7] From Figure 8, we see that the relationship between turnout and migration among Detroit voters generally follows the national trend, with voter turnout  in tracts with no migration in the past year about six percent higher than in tracts where 40 percent of residents have moved.  Migration seems to have the smallest impact on young voters.

Figure 8

Voting and Owner Occupancy

Owner occupancy and migration are both used to indicate neighborhood stability, though they generally move in opposite directions – migration declines as owner occupancy increases. With this in mind, Figure 9 should come as no surprise. It shows that as the percent of owner-occupied homes in a block group increases, the turnout rate increases as well.

Figure 9

Voting and Education

Voting can be a complicated process that requires a high degree of literacy and engagement.  So it is unsurprising that numerous studies have demonstrated a positive relationship between turnout and education. [8] Again, Detroit is no different. Figure 10 shows that voter turnout increases as the percent of residents with a high school diploma increases.

Figure 10

Now Vote Already!

By now you have probably guessed that this article is not really about predicting turnout in today’s election. The true intent was to begin a discussion about civic engagement in the city, and how it is related to demographic and socioeconomic conditions. To continue this discussion, D3 has developed a website that allows you to explore voter data in Wayne County. In the near future, we intend to expand this site to include the entire state, as well as expand the list of related indicators. Until then: Go out and vote!

 Download the Map Packet

[1] Cecil Angel. “Detroit charter revision hot election issue” Detroit Free Press, online. November 4, 2011.

[2] Jonathan Oosting. “Rev. Jesse Jackson talks low voter turnout in Detroit, need for ‘economic stimulus part two’. Mlive.com, online. August 11, 2010.

[3] In case it has been awhile since you’ve seen box plots, here’s a quick refresher. The horizontal line in each box tells you the average value for each group. The top and bottom of each box tell you the upper and lower quartiles for each group. Finally, the ends of the “whiskers” on each boxplot correspond to the highest and lowest values for each group. You can see, for example, that turnout in Local, Non-Mayoral elections averages about 9%, with a high of just over 10%, a low of around 7%, and upper and lower quartiles at just under 10% and 8%, respectively.

[4] Miles, Thomas. “Felon Disenfranchisement and Voter Turnout.” Journal of Legal Studies. 85 (2004).

[5] Schlozman, K. and Verba, S. “Injury to Insult: Unemployment, Class, and Political Response” Harvard University Press, 1979. pp. 12 – 19.

[6]   Rosenstone, S. “Economic Adversity and Voter Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science.
26 (1) (1982)

[7] Squire, P., Wolfinger, R., and Glass, D. “Residential Mobility and Voter Turnout.” The American Political Science Review. 81 (1) (1987)

[8] Tenn, Steven. “The Effect of Education on Voter Turnout.” Political Analysis. 15 (4) (2007)

Last month, in advance of the tax foreclosure auction in Wayne County, Data Driven Detroit (D3) worked to equip Detroit’s community-based organizations and residents with data to make informed decisions.  To encourage residents to participate in the auction and to facilitate [...]]]> By Rob Linn – GIS Analyst at D3

Last month, in advance of the tax foreclosure auction in Wayne County, Data Driven Detroit (D3) worked to equip Detroit’s community-based organizations and residents with data to make informed decisions.  To encourage residents to participate in the auction and to facilitate residents to make neighborhood-specific plans in anticipation of the auction, D3 launched a new free online tool. While tax foreclosure is increasing throughout the Southeast Michigan region, Detroit remains the most affected community.  In Detroit, the auction included more than 12,000 properties with a total area larger than Hamtramck, and risked displacing an estimated 13,000 residents.  While some properties and neighborhoods will benefit from tax foreclosure, the process often proves very challenging for residents and neighborhoods.  Clearly, resident engagement in the tax foreclosure process – as buyers, voters, community decision-makers, and neighbors – is needed to drive a more positive outcome after the auction.

Background: From Delinquency to Forfeiture to Foreclosure

This fall, Detroit, like nearly every community across Michigan, began the difficult and painful process of reconciling old property tax debts through auctions of tax-foreclosed properties.  In accordance with Michigan law – Public Act (PA) 123 of 1999[1] – Michigan’s counties must resolve tax debts more than two years old by holding two or more public auctions of tax-foreclosed properties.   There are 2 types of foreclosures: mortgage and tax. Mortgage foreclosure is used to resolve delinquent mortgages (bank loans for a house) while tax foreclosure is used to resolve delinquent property taxes.  Before properties may undergo tax foreclosure, however, they must navigate a complex system involving several steps: Delinquency – the initial step, when interest begins accruing because of non-payment; forfeiture – the middle step, when interest increases to a significant level and property transfers are made more difficult; and foreclosure, when the county takes the title to the tax delinquent property. 

A better understanding of the 3 step foreclosure process will help the region to better grasp the scope of the current problem, which has been several years in the process. Under PA 123, properties in Michigan enter the first step, tax delinquency, after the first year of non-payment of taxes.  At the onset of delinquency, local county treasurers notify property owners and begin assessing a 4% fee and 12% interest on the arrears.  At this point, a property owner may redeem the property by paying all delinquent taxes, interest, and fees.  If a property’s taxes remain delinquent for another year, the property becomes subject to the second step, tax forfeiture.  At the start of tax forfeiture, property owners are notified again of their continued delinquency by the county treasurer.  At this point, the county treasurer also retroactively increases the interest on backed taxes to 18% and files a notice of forfeiture with the county register of deeds, hindering sales of the property.  If the taxes remain unpaid, the property becomes legally ineligible for redemption, and eligible for tax foreclosure on March 31 in the third year of tax delinquency.  On April 1, the local county treasurer is no longer statutorily required to allow residents to redeem their forfeited properties, and may take title to all forfeited properties through the tax foreclosure process.  In practice, however, most county treasurers allow a grace period for property-owners to pay their taxes beyond March 31, and often don’t necessarily foreclose on properties in the first foreclosable year.   

While Michigan counties must offer all tax-foreclosed properties for auction at least twice, the schedules vary widely between counties.   Most counties are currently in the midst of holding their second and final auction of the year.  In the second auction, minimum bids are often quite low, usually a few hundred dollars per property.  In Wayne County, the final auction lasted 3 days, beginning  on October 21st.[2]  In Macomb County, the final auction was held on October 25, [3] while Washtenaw county ran its auction from October 14 through October 18,[4] and Oakland County held its final auction on October 11.[5]

Tax Foreclosure: A Regional Problem

Since the current tax foreclosure system took effect in 2001, the state’s cities that have been struggling, including Detroit, Flint, Pontiac and Saginaw, have faced growing waves of tax foreclosures each year.  More recently, however, tax foreclosures have begun spreading further throughout the region, with many communities facing the problem on a significant scale for the first time this year.  Communities such as Novi Township, Ypsilanti Township, Royal Oak Township, and Hazel Park are now also local centers of tax foreclosure, with rates similar to those in Detroit in 2007 or 2008.  As the map suggests, tax foreclosures are most concentrated in and around Detroit and its inner-ring suburbs, although more distant areas like Eastern Washtenaw County and central Macomb County have pockets of significant tax foreclosure activity.

Tax Foreclosure in Detroit

Although many Southeast Michigan communities are beset by record numbers of tax foreclosures, no community faces the problem on nearly the same scale as Detroit.  In the October auction by the Wayne County Treasurer, the treasurer offered up unprecedented quantities of property in the City of Detroit for $500 minimum bids.  In total, the 12,194 properties that were listed for sale in Detroit span 1,309.2 acres – an area larger than the City of Hamtramck – creating the opportunity for the largest private land transaction – by area – in the city in nearly a century.  While the overwhelming majority of tax foreclosed properties are residential structures, hundreds of vacant lots and commercial structures are for sale, as well.  In addition to significant ownership and land use ramifications, however, the auction had the potential to have unparalleled personal impacts.  According to 2010 census-based Data Driven Detroit estimates, the 5,103 occupied residential properties listed for sale are home to more than 13,300 people. 

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

Just as many inner-ring suburban communities are facing this problem on a significant scale for the first time this year, many of Detroit’s strongest neighborhoods are soon to become familiar with the challenges of tax foreclosure.  Neighborhoods including Palmer Woods, Indian Village, North Rosedale, and East English Village are facing record-setting levels – albeit comparatively low to the city as a whole – levels of tax foreclosure this year.   

Tax Foreclosure: Challenges and Opportunities

Numerous studies, by practitioners and scholars alike, have shown that escalating foreclosures can spur myriad problems for local municipalities by eroding tax bases,[6] flooding already-saturated real estate markets[7], evicting long-time residents,[8] encouraging land speculation,[9] and blighting neighborhoods.[10]  Tax foreclosure is certainly a damaging process for many properties, but its negative effects are not always universal.  In many areas of Detroit and Flint, there are examples of residents using properties bought in tax foreclosure auctions to affect positive change in their neighborhoods, showcasing their own creativity while sparking neighbors’ excitement.  In Detroit, for example, some auctioned properties have become inexpensive homes to new art galleries, residences, stores, churches, gardens, garages, patios and basketball courts.[11] 

A tax-foreclosed lot became a basketball court on Detroit’s eastside in 2006.

Despite the considerable risks, the auctions can offer unique opportunities to residents.  Given the well-documented barriers to acquiring city-owned property,[12] these auctions offer residents a comparably straightforward, inexpensive and efficient method to begin taking ownership of vacant spaces in their neighborhoods.  Though certainly not the ideal path to change, it is possible for tax foreclosure to provide an opportunity to spark positive change.  Through tax foreclosure, renters can become owner-occupants, neighbors can become landlords, and vacant lots can become gardens.  To spur this change, however, local residents must participate in the tax foreclosure conversation and auction.  Detroit is already a hotbed of creative uses for vacant properties, including such model projects as the recent Tashmoo Biergarten [13] or the now-famous Georgia Street Community Collective.[14]  The tax foreclosure auction can allow residents to take ownership – both figuratively and literally – of their neighborhoods, and make positive, creative improvements.

For the auction to realize this positive potential, however, residents must be more involved.  Between 2002 and 2010, for example, 33.5% of purchasers were city-residents buying single properties.  However, these residents accounted for only 6.3% of properties purchased at auction.  During the same period, 46.4% of property sold at auction was purchased by only 2.5% of purchasers.  The outcomes of properties purchased by these large-scale purchasers tend not to be positive.  Of the properties purchased by these bidders since 2002 that were eligible for tax foreclosure by 2011, 43.5% subsequently re-entered tax foreclosure.  In the same vein, nearly a third – 31.3% – of the properties purchased by these purchasers subsequently received one or more City of Detroit blight violations.  These rates are more than twice as high as those for local residents who purchased single properties.  Clearly, property-by-property auction outcomes are negative in most instances, especially when purchased by wholesale purchasers. 

As tax foreclosures and auctions become challenges for an increasing number of communities throughout Southeast Michigan, statewide support may increase for identifying another means of addressing tax-foreclosed property.  In the interim, however, Detroiters should become more involved in the tax foreclosure process to improve outcomes and find new uses for vacant spaces.  With Detroit Tax Foreclosures: Interactive guide to city properties listed in the Wayne County Auction, Data Driven Detroit seeks to help residents and community-based organizations make informed decisions about tax-foreclosed property and facilitate their participation. 

Download the Map Packet

In the spring of 2010, Data Driven Detroit (D3) and the Graham Institute for Sustainability at the University of Michigan forged a relationship with the Detroit community in order to invest in the environmental health of the city. The Graham Institute is currently providing $250,000 to fund [...]]]> By: Amy Grodin -  Environmental Analyst at D3

In the spring of 2010, Data Driven Detroit (D3) and the Graham Institute for Sustainability at the University of Michigan forged a relationship with the Detroit community in order to invest in the environmental health of the city. The Graham Institute is currently providing $250,000 to fund six major projects, on which D3 is the data partner. The projects were first assessed by Dr. John Callaweart and Katie Lund from the Graham Institute, staff from D3, and community-based advocates and experts. Both D3 and the Graham Institute focused on the community’s interest during the selection process to ensure that the projects chosen would include the best indicators for Detroit and support the long term goal of creating an accurate sustainability index for the city. Don Scavia, Graham Family Professor and Director of the Graham Institute, explained it this way: “This project provides an exceptional opportunity to apply University resources to the broad agenda of sustainable redevelopment in Detroit. University of Michigan Faculty project leads have a deep commitment to Detroit and I believe there will be significant interest in this project.”

The projects, which began work in May 2011, include topics surround water quality and storm water maintenance, temporal mapping of air quality, federal investment in Detroit, commitment to place through acquisition and care for vacant properties/the natural environment. All of these projects will feed into the larger project which is the development of a sustainability index specific to the City of Detroit.

A sustainability index measures social equity, environmental, and economic indicators for a particular area so that policy makers can determine where resources need to be allocated to create a well-rounded quality of life for all. Communities who strive for a healthy economy and a healthy environment for all their citizens would benefit from a sustainability index, as it will assist them in making important decisions.

Sustainability occurs where these three areas intersect. Source: Data Driven Detroit (D3)

The Siemens Corporation published a sustainability index model this year, which included the entire Detroit metro area. In it a total of 27 metro areas in the United States and Canada were factored into its sustainability index. The model used thirty-one indicators; approximately sixteen indicators were quantitative in nature and fifteen were qualitative. The indicators were placed into the following categories: CO₂ Emissions, Energy, Land Use, Buildings, Transport, Water, Waste, Air, and Environmental Governance. The outcome of the study showed that San Francisco ranked most sustainable overall and Detroit was ranked the least sustainable.

Siemens Sustainability Index. Detroit ranks as least sustainable of all cities included in the index. Source: http://www.siemens.com/entry/cc/en/greencityindex.htm

The Siemens rankings identified challenges facing Detroit’s sustainability in each of the areas it examined. Detroit’s high levels of CO₂ emissions were attributed to its heavy industrial base and its proximity to the nation’s second-largest coal plant. Detroit has high energy usage relative to both its population and its GDP. Detroit’s land use was identified as suboptimal because of its low population density, urban sprawl, and limited green space. (See below for more about measuring Detroit’s green space.) Siemens found very few LEED-certified buildings per capita in the area. The extent of Detroit’s public transportation network was rated as above average, but the area has fewer than average commutes completed by walking or biking. Detroit’s water system has higher than average consumption and leakage, and limited wastewater treatment. Detroit’s waste management was found to feature near-zero recycling (though the report acknowledges that recycling has expanded since the data was gathered in 2006). Detroit’s air has lower than average particulate emissions but high levels of nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide emission, likely part of Detroit’s legacy as an automobile- and industry-intensive metropolis. Detroit’s environmental governance is limited by its lack of environmental strategy, environmental targets, and regular environmental reporting.

The city of Detroit, in particular, stands to benefit from the creation of an index designed specifically for its unique situation.  The city needs an index that does not include the entire metro area.  Models such as the Siemens index are useful for evaluating the entire region, but tend not to capture variables that are unique to Detroit, such as a declining population.   In addition, the Graham Institute initiative is an important opportunity to improve collaboration between community organizations and academic institutions. “What excites me about the Graham Institute’s collaboration with Data Driven Detroit is that solid information will be made available to everyone around the region,” explains John Callaweart, the Integrated Assessment Director at the Graham Institute. A major priority for both the D3 and the Graham Institute is to make useful data publicly accessible while creating lasting community partnerships.

For an enhanced understanding of the scope of each project, please visit:

http://datadrivendetroit.org/projects/dsi/.

In October, The Detroit News Hub asked Data Driven Detroit (D3) to write a response to Forbes’ list of America’s Most Dangerous Cities since Detroit was listed as Number One. We at D3 did take an issue with that … from a data point of view. When the data was properly analyzed Detroit actually [...]]]>

In October, The Detroit News Hub asked Data Driven Detroit (D3) to write a response to Forbes’ list of America’s Most Dangerous Cities since Detroit was listed as Number One. We at D3 did take an issue with that … from a data point of view. When the data was properly analyzed Detroit actually ranks 17th.

Check out our original D3 blog post

&

Our version for the Detroit Regional News Hub

Our analysis of National Establishment Time Series (NETS) Data from 2010 revealed 115 full-service grocery stores in the City of Detroit

The recent announcement of the arrival of Whole Foods in Midtown, while bringing only one store, will help dispel the lingering myths [...]]]> by Danny Devries and Robbie Linn – Research Analysts at D3

Our analysis of National Establishment Time Series (NETS) Data from 2010 revealed 115 full-service grocery stores in the City of Detroit

The recent announcement of the arrival of Whole Foods in Midtown, while bringing only one store, will help dispel the lingering myths surrounding Detroit’s food industry: “Detroit has no grocery stores.[1]” “Detroit has no national grocery chains.[2]” “Detroit is a ‘food desert.[3]” This food desert narrative repeatedly suggests that Detroiters’ only option is the local corner store. The Detroit community has worked hard to dismiss this food desert myth[4], and we at Data Driven Detroit(D3) have newly available data to help Detroit tell the real story. However, food access in the city is still a complex and layered issue, one that requires multiple data sets to put it in context.

Grocery Stores Do Exist – We have 115!

By analyzing several data sources, including the National Establishment Time Series (NETS) data, D3 has found 115 full-service grocery stores within the city limits of Detroit.  Additionally, this excludes gems such as Eastern Market and Wayne State farmers’ market. What we mean by full-service is that these are grocery stores in the traditional sense—large enough to offer a variety of products, with shopping carts and advertisements for fresh produce. In addition, these full-service groceries also lack the giant signs advertising cash checking, calling cards, and alcohol that typically advertise convenience stores. The presence of every one of these 115 groceries was verified using Google Street View. There is likely a variety of quality and selection amongst these 115 groceries, but their presence belies the conventional wisdom that Detroiters have no place in the city to buy food. A prior analysis by Robbie Linn has shown that much of Detroit is a “food grassland,” with only small pockets lacking easy access to groceries.[5]

Another commonly held belief is that there are no national grocery chains located in Detroit because the buying power of city residents is too weak to support them. But again, the data show otherwise. Detroit is home to two national chains, Spartan Stores and Save-a-Lot, as well as one international chain, the German-owned Aldi (which also owns Trader Joe’s). True, there are no Meijers, Krogers, or Walmarts in Detroit, but Detroit is rich with both locally owned groceries and farmers’ markets of the type that other cities fight tooth-and-nail to preserve.[6] Even Texas-based upmarket grocer Whole Foods recognizes that Detroit can support a national chain (albeit with $4.2 million in subsidies).[7] While Detroit may not be a major market for food corporations to add to their bottom lines just yet, Detroiters have many food options at their fingertips, both within the city limits and in neighboring suburbs.

Food Access & Bridge Card Redemptions

Ubiquitous groceries are only one piece of the larger issue of food access in Detroit.  Understanding how vulnerable populations currently utilize our city’s food resources is another essential piece to promoting equitable access and developing effective policy.  Using data obtained from the State of Michigan Department of Human Services, we analyzed Electronic Benefit Transfer cards (EBT), also known as Bridge Cards, in order to track where Michiganders have been spending their food assistance dollars. Over $250 million a month was spent across the state through EBT cards between February and July 2011. Nearly $34 million was spent in Detroit, representing 13.7% of statewide spending. This does not mean that Detroit residents received only $34 million in food assistance; rather it means that 13.7% of all EBT dollars were spent within Detroit city limits. In fact, 28.0% of all Detroit households receive food assistance, compared to 9.6% of out-state residents (all of Michigan except Detroit).[8] If Michigan residents spent their EBT money in the cities and townships in which they lived, we would expect to see double the amount of EBT spending in Detroit. It seems that Detroiters are spending a considerable portion of their EBT money outside of the city.

There are several different ways that recipients can spend their EBT money: convenience stores, food banks, Meals-On-Wheels, grocery stores, super stores, and, in some cases, even restaurants. Walmart attracts the highest amount of EBT spending throughout the state. In fact, of the top seventeen largest locations where EBT money is spent, thirteen of them are Walmarts. Out-state, 91.3% of EBT money is spent in grocery stores (including farmer’s markets, super stores, etc.), but only 79.1% of EBT spending in Detroit is spent in grocery stores- a 12.2% gap. Even though Detroit does have grocery stores, it seems that many Detroit EBT recipients are choosing to spend their money in places other than local grocery stores. Part of this 12.2% gap can be explained by the fact that many Detroit residents shop outside of the city for their groceries. According to the Social Compact DrillDown Report (for which Data Driven Detroit was a partner), 31% of all Detroi households’ grocery bills are spent outside of the city.[9] In retailers’ language, this is called “leakage,” and signifies unmet demand for grocery stores in Detroit.

Another factor contributing to the gap between EBT money spent in Detroit and out-state groceries is the disproportionate amount of Detroit EBT money that is spent in convenience stores. At 18.7% of total Detroit spending, it is more than twice the percentage that is spent at convenience stores out-state. Whether this is because of an insufficient supply of grocery stores or the abundance and convenience of convenience stores is difficult to tell. While we do not know what the EBT money was used to purchase, most convenience stores lack the variety of fresh produce that can be found at a grocery store. However, some see the corner store as an opportunity for creative interventions.  The team at Fresh Corner Café has been helping to stock Detroit convenience stores with fresh produce and bringing healthier options to the locations where many EBT recipients choose to shop.  If this initiative is successful, it will spur more convenience stores to stock fresh produce and provide greater access for Detroiters.

EBT Redemptions at Restaurants

Although it is not a significant portion of spending, it is worth noting that 1.95% of Detroit EBT spending occurs at restaurants, nearly twenty times the percentage that is spent on restaurants out-state. Michigan recently changed the EBT regulations to allow spending at restaurants if the EBT recipient is aged sixty or older, blind or disabled, or homeless (i.e.  populations that might struggle to cook for themselves).[10] But in order for a restaurant to accept EBT, it must also be pre-approved by the state. Of the seventy-two approved restaurants, thirty-three are in Detroit, with twenty-seven being either Church’s Chickens or KFCs. While the Michigan Department of Human Services deserves credit for being one of only a handful of states to recognize that some people cannot cook for themselves, they limit access to healthy food for the most vulnerable segments of society by limiting the restaurant options to unhealthy fast-food restaurants. Recent articles in the Detroit News and USA Today suggest that fast food chains are lobbying in other states to be included as food-assistance redemption options. It is possible that Michigan has inadvertently promoted EBT as a potential and expanding market for fast food retailers by allowing a high proportion to be authorized as approved redemption points here in-state.

In addition to fast food restaurants, other food retailers are interested in the EBT market.  In Detroit, many seafood stores circumvent the EBT restaurant regulations by selling fresh fish to EBT users and then frying it on site. This “You buy, we fry” model allows fried fish restaurants to masquerade as seafood stores, selling unhealthy food to poor households and circumventing the intentions of the EBT regulations. These Detroit fish fries earn over $668,000 a month through this loophole. Although restaurant spending is a small percentage of total spending, it represents a failure of public policy by limiting access to prepared food to only a few approved fast-food restaurants and then allowing “You buy, we fry” establishments to game the EBT system.

Detroit’s food industry often gets a bad rap, likely because of our region’s poor health indicators. Admittedly, death from heart disease in Detroit is 48% higher than the national average[11] and the region also struggles with high obesity rates.  In addition, the city is accused of being discouraging to pedestrians and lacking in public transit options.  Although the average Detroiter is only .6 miles from the nearest full-service grocery store[9], getting to a grocery store can still be a challenge for those with limited mobility.

Nevertheless, the notion that Detroit has no grocery stores is a myth. To quote Dan Carmody, President of Eastern Market:

 “Detroit is often described as a food desert… I would argue we don’t live in a food desert; we actually live in one of best food sheds in the country. The fact that we can’t get food from our market and other places into neighborhoods is a huge indictment of our distribution systems and a huge indictment of racial equity issues, but it has nothing to do with being a food desert.[12]”

The problem in Detroit is not a lack of food; it is the way in which that food gets to our tables. The food desert label detracts from the situation on the ground and has the potential to distract policy makers, keeping them from finding real solutions. Detroit residents know the local food landscape best. Poor residents also recognize that local groceries do exist, spending over $27 million a month with EBT cards in Detroit grocers. However, they also show their dissatisfaction with their options by traveling outside of the city to spend their EBT dollars. In order to adequately address Detroit’s food access issues, the conversation must be data driven, and the solutions must address the facts on the ground, rather than prevailing myths.

Download the map packet!
Includes map of grocery stores, EBT approved grocery stores and EBT redemption per capita.

[1] Andrew Grossman. “Retailers head for exits in Detroit” Wall Street Journal, online. June 16, 2009.
[2] Sheena Harrison. “A city without chain grocery stores” CnnMoney.com, online. July 22, 2009.
[3] Stephen Gray. “Can America’s urban food deserts bloom?” Time, online. May 26, 2009.
[4] James Griffioen. “Yes there are grocery stores in Detroit” Sweet Juniper Blog. January 25, 2011.
[5] Robbie Linn. “Food Grasslands of Detroit” Mapping the Strait. February 1, 2011.
[6] Tom Carr. “Acme heads off shopping center, hears out Meijer” The Ticker. September 6, 2011.
[7] Nathan Skid. “Whole Foods moving into Midtown” Crain’s Detroit Business. July 27, 2011
[8] American Community Survey, 2005 – 2009.
[9] Social Compact. “City of Detroit Neighborhood Market Drilldown” December 2010.
[10] State of Michigan. Department of Human Services. Electronic Benefits Transfer(EBT).
[11] Detroit Works Project.
[12] Dan Carmody. Presentation at NNIP Partners Meeting in Detroit. Online Video.

Data Driven Detroit (D3) recently released our Census Compare Tool, an interactive mapping tool allowing users to quickly compare 2000 and 2010 census numbers and download profiles about their neighborhoods, cities and counties.  We got great feedback! The day after that the tool was announced, we received [...]]]> By Clay Martin – Research Analyst at D3

Data Driven Detroit (D3) recently released our Census Compare Tool, an interactive mapping tool allowing users to quickly compare 2000 and 2010 census numbers and download profiles about their neighborhoods, cities and counties.  We got great feedback! The day after that the tool was announced, we received the highest amount of web traffic on our site EVER!  In an effort to give you more of what you want, we thought we would highlight our next big interactive mapping project.

D3, in partnership with the Community Research Institute at Grand Valley State University (CRI), is very pleased to announce an interactive community profile and interactive mapping tool for southeast Michigan. This mapping and neighborhood profile tool allows a user to access and compare multiple data sets, not only the Census, as well as download reports and profiles.

This brief guide will offer insight into the interface and use of this exciting tool!

As members of the National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership (NNIP), D3 and CRI share a commitment to empowering communities by making data accessible to residents and community groups. We believe the community profile and mapping tool represents a big step towards fulfilling that commitment.

Community Profiles

Economics and education include data on educational attainment and employment. Housing includes total housing, owner- and renter-occupied housing, as well as vacancy rates. Parcel survey data for Detroit areas include data on single- and multi-family housing, housing conditions, vacancy rates, fire damage, vacant, open-and dangerous houses, and vacant lots.

In the future, community profiles will also include data on:

• voting, including registration rates, turnout rates for recent congressional and presidential elections, turnout rates by gender, and the average age of voters
• mortgage applications, including overall denial rates and denial rates by race/ethnicity, percent of loans to very low income households, percent of high cost loans, and number of loan originations per thousand households
• land cover, including the percent of land that is impervious, forested, bare, or water.
• vehicle availability, poverty rates, commuting distances, the percent of households that face financial hardship due to housing costs, and more.

In addition to new data, the community profiles pages will soon feature a more customizable interface that will allow users to combine any of the above data into a single report.

Mapping Tool

In addition to viewing data in tabular form, users can click on the ‘Interactive Map’ link to go to MAPAS, an interactive mapping tool that allows users to create thematic maps of Michigan. Available data sets include population/demographics, housing, vital records/health, education, employment and income, voting, crime, and transportation.