Last year, I advised the 2018 Detroit City of Design Strategic Action Plan's creation as part of a group of other UNESCO/Detroit Design-connected peers (if you want the fancy technical term, we're referenced as the Peer Advisory Board on p. 147) -- though I'd be remiss to say a lot of the comments and advisory I contributed went unheeded by the consulting firm tasked to do the report.
In particular:
1) the need to address the legacy of economic suppression, divestment, or even outright oppression that made and let institutionalized racism continue in the city
i.e. from removing skilled trades and the arts from k-12 in recent years and dismantling the public school system's efficacy, or a highly segregated population that results from a mix of insurance and housing policy that resulted from remnants of the early 1900s when supremacist/terrorist groups groups like the KKK openly influenced and controlled business districts and cities.
2) the need to shift toward skill-based "gig economy" resilience rather than building more job pipelines
3) the role of cultural competency and "industry translation" for delivering genuine inclusion and better informed public decision making that lets people take advantage of the projected surge in industry and Detroit's shiny new "UNESCO City of Design" status.
One of the best ways to do that is to connect the every day practical things that normally seem out of reach to the average Detroiter with better communication, and not all of it should rely solely on written word (and yes, I realize criticizing the bias in communicating with text with an equally lengthy article-sized written narrative isn't optimal but we're starting here with a different audience in mind).
Which brings us to the Development industry. The more we learn about the development industry, the more I find it's traditionally about making debts profitable (at least for the big players, but really, when was the last time you ever heard about a small-player in the development industry, if you ever hear about the development industry at all?).
So with an article from early 2018 about Dan Gilbert's desire to use tax breaks and funds that normally would go to things like schools and corrections (go read it and then come back to finish this), it's an opportunity to demystify a bit of this further--here the question becomes whose debt and to what end does it become a profitable investment--for the public and/or Dan Gilbert's works.
In this case, by capturing the tax revenue via brownfield redevelopment incentives (for those without an environmental science or economic/city planning background: brownfields are land that's been contaminated with something like industrial waste, fuel spills, etc. that would make it unsuitable for normal living/farming etc.; but still useful for developing buildings on top of or "fixing" aka remediating the soil so that it's healthy again).
That normally would go toward basics like education. For others (like Ben Mallah of Koncrete's "Life for Sale" show), it's often by flipping large properties--sometimes accelerated by using bank-loaned money to achieve aggressive profit margins (i.e. 2:1 ratio of profit to investment) -- so they're constantly burning to find another bigger property to pay back the investing bank(s) before they get into hot water with their lender(s).
Yet even when we teach people to read in the U.S., we begin with picture books -- yet here we are attempting to learn and teach with the limits an ambitious and dedicated journalist is limited to working with by deciphering troves of text.
So here's a design challenge: I'm certain there's a way to turn the following chunk of text excerpted below into a diagram, infographic, or something that more people would be able to quickly understand:
So how does all this work when you get down in the weeds? One incentive Gilbert is using is called a "brownfield." It allows developers like him to collect property tax revenue to pay for remediation costs after they redevelop contaminated or seriously blighted properties.
In a hypothetical scenario that illustrates how brownfields work, Gilbert's Hudson site property is valued at $100 in 2018. Let' say later this year, the city and state approve a brownfield incentive for it. Next, Gilbert builds on the land, so it's worth $150 in 2019. The city and state continue to collect tax revenue off the original $100, but Gilbert collects tax revenue off the $50 increase.
Gilbert then captures tax revenue off the property tax increases for the next 20 years. So if the property is worth $1,000 in 18 years, Gilbert collects tax revenue off of $900, and the city and state still only collect it off of $100.
The property tax money that the government collects goes to several "jurisdictions," including schools, libraries, parks, jails, cities' general funds, and more. According to the MEDC, Gilbert will be collecting tax money intended for jurisdictions that fund education at the county and state level. So when the property tax revenue collected from that $900 goes to Gilbert, it doesn't go to schools.
In that way, Gilbert's use of the brownfield impacts schools.
But there's another layer. The projects are in Detroit's Downtown Development Authority district. The DDA currently receives the tax money that Gilbert will use — not the schools. Thus, Gilbert can claim that schools aren't impacted because the money is diverted from the DDA to his company. However, the DDA takes the money from the schools, so education taxes are ultimately what funds Gilbert's projects.
-Excerpted from:
https://metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2018/01/11/yes-dan-gilbert-wants-to-use-school-money-to-fund-his-new-downtown-projects
You could especially visualize this as an elegant sankey diagram of sorts -- see this for a black and white example in petroleum energy and this with colors in energy; better yet check out Canada's energy systems and imagine how it might be done to demonstrate tax and business investment.
For a crude attempt, here's my take on what I just read:
In a hypothetical scenario that illustrates how brownfields work, Gilbert's Hudson site property is valued at $100 in 2018. Let' say later this year, the city and state approve a brownfield incentive for it. Next, Gilbert builds on the land, so it's worth $150 in 2019. The city and state continue to collect tax revenue off the original $100, but Gilbert collects tax revenue off the $50 increase.
2018 Value (note: let each + = $10 )
$100 ++++++++++
2019 Value: Gilbert Builds on the Land ( note: let each ~ = $10 in 2016 )
$150 ++++++++++~~~~~
Gilbert then captures tax revenue off the property tax increases for the next 20 years. So if the property is worth $1,000 in 18 years, Gilbert collects tax revenue off of $900, and the city and state still only collect it off of $100.
$900 (note: each ++++++++++ = $100, and if I understand the lines above correctly, that money still comes from you, the tax payer)
Gilbert's $900 (which he and his companies will make some kind of argument that says the jobs created and the business they attract, especially for remediating contaminated soil to build upon, will make it worth while for Detroiters and maybe the state--if you're extremely lucky, maybe you can figure out a way to become a shareholder or take equity in the project to influence what happens, the odds however are extremely slim for the average person)
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
Meanwhile, Detroit's $100 (which, from the ashes of taxpayer dollars, we'll hope good things will rise for the tax paying residents again--in other words, this is the hypothetical portion that the public has the highest likelihood of maintaining accountability and influence over for ensuring the revenue goes toward actual priorities in the interest of the city's residents) remains the same, possibly unadjusted for inflation too:
++++++++++
Total Hypothetical Property Value coming from the Detroit Tax Base: $1000
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
There's still a much better way to depict this which I've not taken time to illustrate with my ascii art rendition above. How could we show the money flowing from the tax base? I'd reference the petroleum diagram in terms of what the fund actually supports and how it gets prioritized for this particular development scenario. And then add the colors etc. to make it more visually appealing.
Yet where do we go to make this kind of development and data literacy happen? Design advocates would say "Designers! Ask the designers!" and inevitably you'll find there's a high-end design firm lurking somewhere in a trendy downtown office hungry for a commission or contract from someone with a decent pocket book.
As the public waits, where can we go? Perhaps someone might wish a non-profit for supporting design might exist to provide these services. In Detroit, the Go-To clearinghouse might be Design Core Detroit (formerly DC3), which is the Org I referenced at the start of this post. But they're a clearinghouse who tends to pursue big-picture funding and reputation with a limited team, it's easy to suspect a measly infographic isn't really in the scope of their perceived responsibility. In function, they're a Chamber of Commerce who laid claim on Detroit's "creative + design industry" and replicated all the traditional organizational functions a typical Chamber of Commerce does to keep its membership and influence in a city.
Say what you will about the New York Times, but spend enough time looking at their work and you'll find outstanding work when it comes to conveying some of the data they use to examine stories -- take for example this piece that points to school segregation and success by comparing money, race, and student success.
For the City of Detroit (and the world at large), one thing that would distinguish its industry might be the way it communicates important data -- the kind that's visceral to our day to day lives like traffic accident statistics, crime, disinvestment/investment/development, accessibility, education, home and utility affordability, glocal civic engagement (as in, how local decisions and elections intertwine with global issues) etc. in a way that accelerates public literacy and competence around the issues.
While data for literacy rates in Detroit might be a contested topic, the reality that most people tend to do better with pictures
On the other end of the spectrum, we might appeal to the Designer's Guild for Justice or maybe some kind of diasporic remnant of the Occupy Movement's Design and Research collectives.
For now however, I'll leave this question "who's going to do the design work?" to all of you...
REFERENCES
Life for Sale: Focuses more on large multi-unit buildings (Apartments, Senior Citizen Homes, Shopping Plazas), but gives you a taste of how developers would focus on large tracts of land. I don't necessarily agree with or enjoy his sense of humor, you'll still learn a lot about the scale of investment in the industry from watching the early episodes in the series.
This episode turned on the "Aha." for demystifying how real estate development works and looks like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gC8dUcoKFE
The trick is to continue buying and selling else he'd have to pay tax--I don't understand all the details yet but I get the impression there are a lot more millionaires out there who are just as caught up in a similar game:
https://youtu.be/TGEPle4uFPU
Awaiting the close of a deal between a bank loan, etc.:
https://youtu.be/3YoAbBRCa34
Buying/Flipping a Senior Citizen Complex:
https://youtu.be/GjCBJtibA7k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zfq5-Sj4GU
Detroit's #1 Billionaire, Dan Gilbert technically does want to use money that funds schools for his development projects; also thinks people miss the nuances to why big developments deserve tax breaks.
https://metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2018/01/11/yes-dan-gilbert-wants-to-use-school-money-to-fund-his-new-downtown-projects
NOTE to people about tax breaks:
For environmental science students who took Dr. Riebesell's land use planning and management course, development incentives -- especially brownfield redevelopment, etc. -- these are typically emphasized as a good thing. A brownfield is normally a contaminated (i.e. risky, somewhat toxic or at least polluted enough that you can't just set up and do typical building on) site that people stay away from--real estate developers are more likely to sprawl out their developments and encroach upon pristine land (i.e. cut down a forest, drain a wetland, or push out a historic neighborhood as the likely alternatives).
However, I question whether certain habits become relevant once an individual or entity reaches a different scale. A billionaire like Dan Gilbert might be able to defend his actions by pointing to the basics for how a profitable business needs to run. Yet he no longer operates a basic business or like a normal business person starting at ground zero from scratch--he literally influences governments and entire media cycles with his mere presence. He has the capacity to look at prioritizing his funding and investments in ways that consider the constraints and needs of the environment he chooses to operate in beyond a traditional charitable-foundation model. So unless he's operating on archaic development business practices, cleaning up a brownfield development project likely can be done without taking all of the incentives that the media suggests he's requesting.
Sankey Diagrams:
Petroleum Energy -- Black and White, corresponds to a common source
https://goo.gl/images/vDLyJY
Energy -- Note for Colors
https://goo.gl/images/wknBV2
Canada's Energy System -- Probably the best of the three diagram examples I provide yet
https://goo.gl/images/u11J6t
NY Times Interactive Data: Money, Race, and Success -- see how your school district compares to others:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/29/upshot/money-race-and-success-how-your-school-district-compares.html
In particular:
1) the need to address the legacy of economic suppression, divestment, or even outright oppression that made and let institutionalized racism continue in the city
i.e. from removing skilled trades and the arts from k-12 in recent years and dismantling the public school system's efficacy, or a highly segregated population that results from a mix of insurance and housing policy that resulted from remnants of the early 1900s when supremacist/terrorist groups groups like the KKK openly influenced and controlled business districts and cities.
2) the need to shift toward skill-based "gig economy" resilience rather than building more job pipelines
3) the role of cultural competency and "industry translation" for delivering genuine inclusion and better informed public decision making that lets people take advantage of the projected surge in industry and Detroit's shiny new "UNESCO City of Design" status.
One of the best ways to do that is to connect the every day practical things that normally seem out of reach to the average Detroiter with better communication, and not all of it should rely solely on written word (and yes, I realize criticizing the bias in communicating with text with an equally lengthy article-sized written narrative isn't optimal but we're starting here with a different audience in mind).
Which brings us to the Development industry. The more we learn about the development industry, the more I find it's traditionally about making debts profitable (at least for the big players, but really, when was the last time you ever heard about a small-player in the development industry, if you ever hear about the development industry at all?).
So with an article from early 2018 about Dan Gilbert's desire to use tax breaks and funds that normally would go to things like schools and corrections (go read it and then come back to finish this), it's an opportunity to demystify a bit of this further--here the question becomes whose debt and to what end does it become a profitable investment--for the public and/or Dan Gilbert's works.
In this case, by capturing the tax revenue via brownfield redevelopment incentives (for those without an environmental science or economic/city planning background: brownfields are land that's been contaminated with something like industrial waste, fuel spills, etc. that would make it unsuitable for normal living/farming etc.; but still useful for developing buildings on top of or "fixing" aka remediating the soil so that it's healthy again).
That normally would go toward basics like education. For others (like Ben Mallah of Koncrete's "Life for Sale" show), it's often by flipping large properties--sometimes accelerated by using bank-loaned money to achieve aggressive profit margins (i.e. 2:1 ratio of profit to investment) -- so they're constantly burning to find another bigger property to pay back the investing bank(s) before they get into hot water with their lender(s).
Yet even when we teach people to read in the U.S., we begin with picture books -- yet here we are attempting to learn and teach with the limits an ambitious and dedicated journalist is limited to working with by deciphering troves of text.
So here's a design challenge: I'm certain there's a way to turn the following chunk of text excerpted below into a diagram, infographic, or something that more people would be able to quickly understand:
So how does all this work when you get down in the weeds? One incentive Gilbert is using is called a "brownfield." It allows developers like him to collect property tax revenue to pay for remediation costs after they redevelop contaminated or seriously blighted properties.
In a hypothetical scenario that illustrates how brownfields work, Gilbert's Hudson site property is valued at $100 in 2018. Let' say later this year, the city and state approve a brownfield incentive for it. Next, Gilbert builds on the land, so it's worth $150 in 2019. The city and state continue to collect tax revenue off the original $100, but Gilbert collects tax revenue off the $50 increase.
Gilbert then captures tax revenue off the property tax increases for the next 20 years. So if the property is worth $1,000 in 18 years, Gilbert collects tax revenue off of $900, and the city and state still only collect it off of $100.
The property tax money that the government collects goes to several "jurisdictions," including schools, libraries, parks, jails, cities' general funds, and more. According to the MEDC, Gilbert will be collecting tax money intended for jurisdictions that fund education at the county and state level. So when the property tax revenue collected from that $900 goes to Gilbert, it doesn't go to schools.
In that way, Gilbert's use of the brownfield impacts schools.
But there's another layer. The projects are in Detroit's Downtown Development Authority district. The DDA currently receives the tax money that Gilbert will use — not the schools. Thus, Gilbert can claim that schools aren't impacted because the money is diverted from the DDA to his company. However, the DDA takes the money from the schools, so education taxes are ultimately what funds Gilbert's projects.
-Excerpted from:
https://metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2018/01/11/yes-dan-gilbert-wants-to-use-school-money-to-fund-his-new-downtown-projects
You could especially visualize this as an elegant sankey diagram of sorts -- see this for a black and white example in petroleum energy and this with colors in energy; better yet check out Canada's energy systems and imagine how it might be done to demonstrate tax and business investment.
For a crude attempt, here's my take on what I just read:
In a hypothetical scenario that illustrates how brownfields work, Gilbert's Hudson site property is valued at $100 in 2018. Let' say later this year, the city and state approve a brownfield incentive for it. Next, Gilbert builds on the land, so it's worth $150 in 2019. The city and state continue to collect tax revenue off the original $100, but Gilbert collects tax revenue off the $50 increase.
2018 Value (note: let each + = $10 )
$100 ++++++++++
2019 Value: Gilbert Builds on the Land ( note: let each ~ = $10 in 2016 )
$150 ++++++++++~~~~~
Gilbert then captures tax revenue off the property tax increases for the next 20 years. So if the property is worth $1,000 in 18 years, Gilbert collects tax revenue off of $900, and the city and state still only collect it off of $100.
$900 (note: each ++++++++++ = $100, and if I understand the lines above correctly, that money still comes from you, the tax payer)
Gilbert's $900 (which he and his companies will make some kind of argument that says the jobs created and the business they attract, especially for remediating contaminated soil to build upon, will make it worth while for Detroiters and maybe the state--if you're extremely lucky, maybe you can figure out a way to become a shareholder or take equity in the project to influence what happens, the odds however are extremely slim for the average person)
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
Meanwhile, Detroit's $100 (which, from the ashes of taxpayer dollars, we'll hope good things will rise for the tax paying residents again--in other words, this is the hypothetical portion that the public has the highest likelihood of maintaining accountability and influence over for ensuring the revenue goes toward actual priorities in the interest of the city's residents) remains the same, possibly unadjusted for inflation too:
++++++++++
Total Hypothetical Property Value coming from the Detroit Tax Base: $1000
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
++++++++++
There's still a much better way to depict this which I've not taken time to illustrate with my ascii art rendition above. How could we show the money flowing from the tax base? I'd reference the petroleum diagram in terms of what the fund actually supports and how it gets prioritized for this particular development scenario. And then add the colors etc. to make it more visually appealing.
Yet where do we go to make this kind of development and data literacy happen? Design advocates would say "Designers! Ask the designers!" and inevitably you'll find there's a high-end design firm lurking somewhere in a trendy downtown office hungry for a commission or contract from someone with a decent pocket book.
As the public waits, where can we go? Perhaps someone might wish a non-profit for supporting design might exist to provide these services. In Detroit, the Go-To clearinghouse might be Design Core Detroit (formerly DC3), which is the Org I referenced at the start of this post. But they're a clearinghouse who tends to pursue big-picture funding and reputation with a limited team, it's easy to suspect a measly infographic isn't really in the scope of their perceived responsibility. In function, they're a Chamber of Commerce who laid claim on Detroit's "creative + design industry" and replicated all the traditional organizational functions a typical Chamber of Commerce does to keep its membership and influence in a city.
Say what you will about the New York Times, but spend enough time looking at their work and you'll find outstanding work when it comes to conveying some of the data they use to examine stories -- take for example this piece that points to school segregation and success by comparing money, race, and student success.
For the City of Detroit (and the world at large), one thing that would distinguish its industry might be the way it communicates important data -- the kind that's visceral to our day to day lives like traffic accident statistics, crime, disinvestment/investment/development, accessibility, education, home and utility affordability, glocal civic engagement (as in, how local decisions and elections intertwine with global issues) etc. in a way that accelerates public literacy and competence around the issues.
While data for literacy rates in Detroit might be a contested topic, the reality that most people tend to do better with pictures
On the other end of the spectrum, we might appeal to the Designer's Guild for Justice or maybe some kind of diasporic remnant of the Occupy Movement's Design and Research collectives.
For now however, I'll leave this question "who's going to do the design work?" to all of you...
 |
| Detroit native Aurora guides a group through the stories in this Detroit youth-made mural during an anniversary observance of Vincent Chin's murder and in solidarity with the Detroit Asian American community on the final remains of Detroit's Chinatown. Shortly after telling her story, she expressed her frustration and surprise that she discovered the city of Detroit was bidding on a rail transit development proposal through a late night broadcast on BBC World News before hearing anything from the City. |
REFERENCES
Life for Sale: Focuses more on large multi-unit buildings (Apartments, Senior Citizen Homes, Shopping Plazas), but gives you a taste of how developers would focus on large tracts of land. I don't necessarily agree with or enjoy his sense of humor, you'll still learn a lot about the scale of investment in the industry from watching the early episodes in the series.
This episode turned on the "Aha." for demystifying how real estate development works and looks like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gC8dUcoKFE
The trick is to continue buying and selling else he'd have to pay tax--I don't understand all the details yet but I get the impression there are a lot more millionaires out there who are just as caught up in a similar game:
https://youtu.be/TGEPle4uFPU
Awaiting the close of a deal between a bank loan, etc.:
https://youtu.be/3YoAbBRCa34
Buying/Flipping a Senior Citizen Complex:
https://youtu.be/GjCBJtibA7k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zfq5-Sj4GU
Detroit's #1 Billionaire, Dan Gilbert technically does want to use money that funds schools for his development projects; also thinks people miss the nuances to why big developments deserve tax breaks.
https://metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2018/01/11/yes-dan-gilbert-wants-to-use-school-money-to-fund-his-new-downtown-projects
NOTE to people about tax breaks:
For environmental science students who took Dr. Riebesell's land use planning and management course, development incentives -- especially brownfield redevelopment, etc. -- these are typically emphasized as a good thing. A brownfield is normally a contaminated (i.e. risky, somewhat toxic or at least polluted enough that you can't just set up and do typical building on) site that people stay away from--real estate developers are more likely to sprawl out their developments and encroach upon pristine land (i.e. cut down a forest, drain a wetland, or push out a historic neighborhood as the likely alternatives).
However, I question whether certain habits become relevant once an individual or entity reaches a different scale. A billionaire like Dan Gilbert might be able to defend his actions by pointing to the basics for how a profitable business needs to run. Yet he no longer operates a basic business or like a normal business person starting at ground zero from scratch--he literally influences governments and entire media cycles with his mere presence. He has the capacity to look at prioritizing his funding and investments in ways that consider the constraints and needs of the environment he chooses to operate in beyond a traditional charitable-foundation model. So unless he's operating on archaic development business practices, cleaning up a brownfield development project likely can be done without taking all of the incentives that the media suggests he's requesting.
Sankey Diagrams:
Petroleum Energy -- Black and White, corresponds to a common source
https://goo.gl/images/vDLyJY
Energy -- Note for Colors
https://goo.gl/images/wknBV2
Canada's Energy System -- Probably the best of the three diagram examples I provide yet
https://goo.gl/images/u11J6t
NY Times Interactive Data: Money, Race, and Success -- see how your school district compares to others:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/29/upshot/money-race-and-success-how-your-school-district-compares.html
