What if Google bought Detroit?
brandonhtomlin.blogspot.com
brandonhtomlin.blogspot.com
I think this analysis is a little silly.
...and turn it into a dictatorship, too, apparently.
Someone's a bit confused.
>There are big patches of unincorporated land in every state; they aren't lawless wastelands, but are instead managed and services by their parent counties and states.
Tangentially, this isn't true. NJ has no unincorporated land. Most states in the north eastern quadrant of the country have their unincorporated land organized as townships, which have elected boards of trustees or similar.
Unluckily for Google, the cash-strapped state of the city is not indicative of any lack of monied influences who rather prefer things the way they are.
We gave Google a huge ($38 million) tax break when they opened an office here in Ann Arbor with promises to hire 1,000 workers at the Ann Arbor office.
Instead staffing has been around 300 people at that office.
The state actually filed a tax lien against Google due to this violation of the agreement.
So I doubt you'll see the state getting into bed with Google again soon.
http://www.annarbor.com/business-review/googles-31-million-m...
http://www.annarbor.com/business-review/31-million-tax-lien-...
Basically stating that the office in charge of auditing companies who got the MEGA grants and making sure they qualified for them wasn't doing its job and on review it turned out Google didn't qualify and owed back taxes based on that.
But regardless, if the tax lien is unrelated (which seems weird to me, especially since the figures involved fit perfectly with the MEGA credit), Google still hasn't held up its end of the agreement.
There's a damn good reason we don't want corporations to be able to "buy" cities.
Further, why would Google even need their help, let alone pay $20bn to attempt to strong-arm them into some partnership?
Google, should they want to develop their own vehicles, wouldn't need more than one or two plants for years. And there's plenty to go around in SE Michigan. There's no need for legislative sway and they can be had for significantly less than billions of dollars.
That said, it's unlikely that's true, because there's still a lot of option value available if someone's willing to make hard decisions and/or shed some costs through bankruptcy. (But it's going to be really unpopular, like not paying pensions or simply shutting down city services to certain neighborhoods.)
America doesn't really have a model for shrinking city infrastructure. Detroit is the first test of what happens when a major modern city stops growing and starts shrinking in a long-term way. It's hard to scale down government and infrastructure in a smooth way.
Ah yes, democracy, ever holding back technology and progress.
Do. Not. Want.
So in that spirit: Yes, in TV shows like Deadwood and Eureka.
"What would be appealing to Google would be the ability to produce city wide legislature that allowed them to use the entire city of Detroit as real life testing ground for all of their technologies without having to comply to city laws and regulations. This would allow them to test cutting edge technologies in everyday scenarios. It would also present the authority needed to re-imagine how a city operates on an information level, and not only to test their driver-less cars, but test products such as mobile commerce, free public internet and free public transportation as well."
The article talks about how Detroit has $20B in debts and Google could afford to spend $20B. But that wouldn't be the cost of Detroit which would also include all of the assets that the city owns. Even then, what have they bought? Things like the roads and sewer system? But they wouldn't really control those things since the residents of Detroit would elect their government.
But let's say that Google could own a city and rule it as a dictatorship within America. "Google could convince the existing car manufacturers to start producing Google Cars and a premium rate. [sic]" Self-driving cars are still a while away. Ignoring that for a moment (and ignoring the fact that Ford and Chrysler moved out of Detroit), I understand the thought: "how great would it be for the Detroit automakers to have a higher-margin draw to their products?" That would be great in a certain sense, but wouldn't really work. If it were easy and cheap to do, others could easily follow. If it's hard and expensive, Google isn't going to just donate those profits to the GM/Ford/Chrysler shareholders and workers - they're going to want those profits for Google shareholders and Google workers. However, the whole thing ignores the fact that Google owning Detroit and such a partnership have nothing to do with each other.
"What would be appealing to Google would be the ability to produce city wide legislature. . . [sic]" Again, this goes back to the issue that Detroit would still be democratically governed. Sure, Google could use power and influence to shape legislation, but isn't that what, say, Comcast tries to do? The idea that Google wouldn't have to comply with laws and regulations is laughable (and would be terrifying if it weren't so ridiculous).
It's always interesting to think, "how would someone/some organization I respect run a government." However, there just isn't logic in this article. Democratic governance negates most of it, equal protection guarantees mean that Google couldn't be placed above the law, and any partnerships with other companies could be made regardless of "owning" Detroit.
Anyway. I don't know what would happen, but a corp-owned city is a classic dystopia scenario. I've lived enough of my life working for corporations; I don't really want their tentacles creeping into my entire life and making my body's entire existence about maximizing their profit, or being research subjects, etc.
--------------------
They don't portray human-rights well in this new world.
Of course, the blog post is a bit naive, but it probably was just meant as a discussion starter. I've been thinking about a very similar plan.
This is what I'd do if I were filthy rich and ruthless: - Buy a large part of the city. I mean properties, buildings, infrastructure. - Arrange special terms with city and state. Make Googletown into a separate entity, with its own city government etc.. If you wait for another major crash, the US might be so desperate that you can arrange for extraterritorial status. - Maybe one could arrange that unused interesting property can be expropriated or forcefully sold. - Make Googletown into a Special Economic Zone. - You don't only get the property, but also everybody who lives on it. Not as your servants :-) but as citizens of Googletown.
Why? The idea is that you'll have a lot of very cheap workers, who will be extremely loyal to you for saving their city, if you pull it off correctly. You can produce all kinds of (cheap) goods at competitive prices, and sell them on the north American market. And you can run experiments - sure, Google Cars, but I'm more interested in social experiments (see below).
Why would Detroit/Michigan/the US agree to my plan? - It would provide immediate relief. As someone in this thread noticed, the debt is much less than the total value of the city. Paying the debt is peanuts in comparison. - They'd get rid of many bad = cheap parts of the city. - You'd take care of the people for them - providing healthcare, social security, police, etc..
How would I rule Googletown? I'd let it organize democratically, but I'd take care that I'd control the general direction of development. On one hand, I'd try to make it a liberal model town / experiment. Gay marrage, strict gun control, universal healthcare... a republican's nightmare :-).
On the other hand, I'm trying to run a very troubled town. People are poor, not well educated, there's a lot of crime. People are accustomed to doing stuff their way, and won't likely adapt well to a googletopian society. So it's not just carrot, but unfortunately also stick. (Wow, that sounded really Machiavellian. Honestly, I hope no one ever tries to pull this off.). One necessary thing would be to crack down on organized crime and gangs. Increase police presence, expell all gang members from the city bounds. Ban all weapons. Regard organized crime as treason against the people, and have draconian punishments for it. Robocops.
Again, I find it sad and scary that we've come to the point where I'm actually considering a benevolent corporate dictatorship to be a worthwhile alternative to our current system.