Tag Archives: Drawing Detroit

Michigan’s Potential Future with Nuclear Energy

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

The consumption and production of nuclear energy is not new in Michigan. In fact, according to the most recent data from Energy Information Administration, Michigan produced more nuclear energy in 2020 than any other kind of energy. At that time, Michigan had three functioning nuclear power plants- Fermi 2, Cook and Palisades. In May of 2022 though the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant, which is located on the west side of the state, ceased operations.

Now, however, Palisades’ operations might re-start. Several lawmakers in Michigan want the nuclear plant to re-open, both for energy and economic purposes. On Sept. 9, 2022 Gov. Gretchen Whitmer sent a letter to the US Department of Energy supporting the new owner of Palisades Power Plant’s (Holtec International) federal grant application to the Civil Nuclear Credit program. This program was established to save “premature” retirements of nuclear reactors due to financial hardships. While Michigan lawmakers, such as Gov. Whitmer, believe the nuclear plant is eligible for the program there are several groups, including the Michigan Sierra Club and Michigan Wildlife Conservancy that believe otherwise.

When the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant closed on May 20, 2022 it closed 11 days early because of the performance of a “control rod drive seal,” according to a press release from the Governor’s Office. It was on May 20 that its fuel supply ran out and the power purchase agreement with Consumers Energy expired. The environmental groups say that the plant isn’t eligible for the federal grant program.

Opponents say ineligibility stems from the fact the plant is in fact retired now, according to the Holland Sentinel, and the program is intended for plants that are still operating. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it has never received a request to return a nuclear plant to the grid after it has been permanently defueled. If Palisades becomes the first this could mean the 600 jobs lost when the plant closed could be brought back.

Proponents say economic development is a factor to consider when seeking to  re-open the plant as well as the amount of energy produced and consumed. They argue its long-term effects on Michigan and beyond should also be considered.

Data is not yet available to determine how the closure has impacted the state’s energy production and consumption for 2022, but according to the Governor’s Office more than 800 megawatts of nuclear energy was produced by the Palisades plant on an annual basis. And, as the charts below show, the amount of nuclear energy produced in Michigan is equal to the amount consumed.

According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2021, coal provided the largest share of Michigan’s electricity net generation (32%), followed by nuclear energy (30%) and then natural gas-fired power (27%). The data in BTUs was not available for 2021, but the charts below show that in 2021 316.7 trillion BTUs of nuclear energy was both produced and consumed in Michigan.

In the last 20 plus years the amount of nuclear energy produces, and consumed, has grown slightly (except for a production dip in 2009). In 2000, 196.9 trillion BTUs of nuclear energy was produced and consumed in Michigan, and by 2020 that number increased to 316.7 trillion BTUs. It will decline substantially now with the closing of Palisades, a loss of roughly 800 megawatts.

While the reasoning behind the closure of Palisades Nuclear Plant was based on business reasons, its reopening offers the possibility of a non-carbon-based source of electricity. Michigan has a heavy reliance on carbon-based energy.  The goal is for the state to be carbon neutral by 2050, have all coal plants closed by 2035 and to use at least 50 percent of renewable energy for consumption by 2030, according to the MiClimate Plan. Nuclear energy is not renewable, but it is a non-carbon-based source of energy. It’s advocate, the Office of Nuclear Energy, argues:
•It does not produce emissions (nuclear energy produces energy through fission);
•It utilizes a relatively small footprint to produce energy than others sources (more than 3 million solar panels are needed to produce the same amount of power as a typical commercial reactor or more than 430 wind turbines, according to the Office of Nuclear Energy);
•Nuclear fuel is dense so it produces minimal waste.
Opponents support the decommissioning of plants, including Palisades. Their reasoning considers first, the radioactive waste that remains on-site. The waste can remain on site for decades and the storage and removal of the waste is a concern because of potential spills, groundwater contamination and more.
In addition, the risk of an accident at a nuclear plant also causes grave concern for those in the plant and the surroundings of the nuclear power plant, including long-term radioactive pollution of the area—just look at Chernobyl. Recent  threats to Ukrainian nuclear plants raise the specter of new ways that nuclear disasters could occur.  Other concerns are that the mining of uranium is controversial, nuclear plants can be viewed as national security threats, and these plants cost an exorbitant amount to build.
With the pros and cons to nuclear energy fairly well known, now the federal government, the new Palisades’ Nuclear Power Plant owner and the State of Michigan must decide whether redeveloping Michigan’s nuclear energy supply is worthwhile.

Michigan’s Energy Consumption Tops its Production

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

https://forms.office.com/r/WZB2vvRXNt
https://forms.office.com/r/WZB2vvRXNt

In Michigan, we consume more energy, overall, than we produce, and the type of energy we produce is more limited than the types of energy sources we consume. For example, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), Michigan does not produce any coal for energy. However, in 2020, according to the EIA, 334.4 trillion BTUs were consumed. The coal powered energy consumed in Michigan is brought in from elsewhere, primarily Wyoming and Montana.

The largest energy source produced in Michigan is nuclear energy, with 316.7 trillion BTUs being produced in 2020. The amount of nuclear energy produced in 2020 is nearly a third more than what was produced in 2000; in 2000 196.9 BTUs of nuclear electricity was produced in Michigan. In the last 20 years, the largest amount of nuclear energy produced in Michigan was 344.2 trillion BTUs in 2011.

In 2020 there were three nuclear power plants in Michigan. However, in May of 2022 one of the nuclear power plants shut down. We will dig deeper into Michigan’s nuclear power next week.

While nuclear energy most recently reigned supreme in energy production totals, at one-point, natural gas was the largest energy source in Michigan. The amount of natural gas energy produced in Michigan reached its peak production at 312 trillion BTUs in 2000. Since then, the amount produced has steadily declined. Between 2007 and 2008 the amount of natural gas produced in Michigan declined from 275 trillion BTUs to 162 trillion BTUs. By 2020, the amount produced was 69.9 trillion BTUs. Overall, between 2007 and 2020 the amount of natural gas produced in Michigan declined by 204.7 trillion BTUs.

In 2020, Michigan ranked 19th in the amount of natural gas produced.

Crude oil production has ranged between 45 and 24 trillion BTUs since 2000, with a steady decline happening since 2013. According to the EIA, Michigan ranked 18th out of the 50 states for crude oil production in 2020. In 2020, 24 trillion BTUs of crude oil was produced.  This is a decrease from the 45.9 trillion BTUs produced in 2000.

Crude oil production in the state comes from reserves; in 2020 about 4.5 million barrels of crude oil were produced compared to the 34.7 million barrels that were produced in 1979.  Please note the chart references BTUs, while barrels of crude oil is another measurement used to detail production of this energy source.
The amount of renewable energy produced in Michigan has grown since 2000, outclimbing energy production numbers of crude oil and natural gas. In total in 2020, according to the EIA, 225 trillion BTUs of renewable energy was produced. While this was a slight decrease from 237 trillion BTUs produced two years earlier, it is still an increase overall in the amount of renewable energy produced.

The highest amount of renewable energy produced by a source was from wood and waste since 2000. In 2020 the amount of wood and waste renewable energy produced in Michigan was 99.4 trillion BTUs, a decline from the 119.5 trillion BTUs in 2018.

In 2002, biofuels did not produce any energy, and by 2020 that number increased to 43.1 trillion BTUs. This was a slight decline from the 50.8 trillion BTUs produced.
 
For “other” renewable energy sources, which include wind, solar and hydroelectric energy, there has been a steady increase in production. There was however somewhat of a spike in 2014 when the amount produced shadowed the amount of biofuel energy produced in Michigan. In 2014 there were 58 trillion BTUs of “other” renewable energy produced in Michigan; in 2020 that number increased to 82.5 trillion BTUs.
While there has been somewhat of a shift in the type of energy produced in Michigan, such as a more nuclear and renewable energy being produced and less natural gas, the overall amount produced has remained fairly stable. The gap between the amount of energy produced in Michigan and the amount consumed has also remained somewhat stable, but large. In 2000, there was a 2,559.8 trillion BTU gap between the amount of energy consumed and produced in Michigan. By 2020 that gap only decreased to 1,975.1 trillion BTUs.

As noted last week, Michigan consumes 240.2 trillion BTUs of renewable energy sources, 100.3 trillion BTUs of natural gas and more than three times those amounts in both coal and oil energy sources. With consumption levels where they are at, and the necessary shift to clean energy sources growing greater and greater, Michigan’s energy policies should also shift. There needs to be further encouragement, and enforcement, of creating more renewable energy production sources in the state, with that energy than being used in-state. Michigan should prioritize consuming the clean energy it produces and increasing such production.

Michigan’s Energy Consumption Declined in 2020

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

In 2020, Michigan’s primary energy consumption was 2,610.6 trillion British Thermal Units (BTU), the lowest it has been since 1984 when it was at 2,597.4 trillion. This total consumption number is based on all categories of energy, including (but not limited to) coal, petroleum, natural gas and renewable energy sources. Between 1984 and 1999 energy consumption in Michigan continued to regularly increase; in 1999 Michigan’s total energy consumption was 3,227.4 trillion BTU. Since then, Michigan’s energy consumption decreased to 2,610.6 trillion BTU in 2020. In 2020 Michigan ranked 10th in total energy consumption out of the 50 states and the District of Columbia (this includes residential, commercial, industrial and transportation).

The decrease can be linked to several factors including, Michigan’s population decrease, the commercial sector becoming more energy savvy, the implementation and use of Utility Waste Reduction Programs and an overall awareness on energy consumption and its environmental and financial impacts. 

However, while energy consumption is declining in Michigan, energy use is still a key factor in everyday life. The chart below highlights some of the key energy sources consumed in Michigan in 2020.

**The data provided in this post is from the to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and can be found here.***

In the State of Michigan, petroleum is the most highly consumed form of energy, according EIA.  In 2020, 1,010.9 trillion (BTU)s of petroleum were consumed in the State of Michigan with natural gas being the second highest consumed energy source at 1,003.4 trillion BTUs. For context, , petroleum represents the use of motor gasoline, distillate fuel oil, residual fuel and jet fuel and natural gas is used for heating, electricity and industrial use. One of the largest energy sources produced in Michigan is natural gas.

Coal was the third largest type of energy consumed in Michigan in 2020 at 334.4 trillion BTUs. Although coal is the third largest type of energy consumed in Michigan, coal fired-power plants provide the largest share of the electricity generated in Michigan. However, Michigan has no active coal mines, most of the coal consumed in the state is brought in by rail from the west.

Renewable energy consumption in Michigan is not even half of the consumption of petroleum, natural gas or coal, but there are continuous strides to utilize it as a reliable energy source. Biomass, all together, was the largest consumed renewable energy source in Michigan at 157.7 trillion BTUs in 2020. Biomass includes organic matter such as wood or crop waste. Wind energy is the second largest consumed renewable energy source in Michigan at 59.1 trillion BTUs.

While petroleum has long been an energy source that has been heavily consumed in Michigan, there has been shifts in its consumption numbers, along with the consumption of other energy sources. The charts below show how energy source consumption habits have changed in Michigan between 2000 and 2020.
Some key takeaways include:

Petroleum: There has been an overall increase of usage since 2012, when it was reported that 787.2 trillion BTUs were consumed. Prior to 2012, use of petroleum remained steady between 2000 and 2005. Consumption then began to drop to the 2012 low point. This pattern of decline, then resurgence, is one that follows economic activity related to the Great Recession. We will likely see a decline in consumption for 2021, and even 2022, in reflection of the pandemic and its economic impacts.
Natural Gas: Consumption of natural gas hit a low point in 2009 at 750.8 trillion BTUs. Since then though, consumption steadily increased through 2019. In 2020 there was a slight decrease, with consumption dropping from 1,055 trillion BTUs in 2019 to 1,003.5 trillion BTUs in 2020.
Biomass: Consumption of biomass as an energy source steadily increased between 2002 and 2018. In 2002 81 trillion BTUs of biomass was consumed and by 2018 that number increased to 175.7 trillion BTUs. Since 2018 consumption has been slowly declining. A decrease in consumption of wood and waste and fuel ethanol were the largest contributors to that decline.
Geothermal: The consumption of geothermal as an energy source steadily increased from 2000 to 2011, (from 1.2 trillion BTUs to 5.1 trillion BTUs) and has since leveled off, with 5.2 trillion BTUs being consumed each year between 2012 and 2020.
Wind: Consumption of wind power energy in Michigan truly took off in 2009 and has only increased since then, with the 2020 consumption number being 59.1 trillion BTUs.
Solar and hydroelectric: Solar and hydroelectric are the lowest consumed renewable energy sources in Michigan. According to the EIA, 3.2 trillion BTUs of solar energy was consumed in Michigan in 2020; this is an increase from the 0.2 trillion BTUs consumed in 2000. This was also the highest amount consumed to date.
Consumption of hydroelectric energy has been erratic, with consumption of this energy source fairly consistently increasing since 2012.

While fossil fuels are still a large part of Michigan’s energy consumption, the data shows there is a shift, albeit somewhat slow, toward renewable energy. In 2008 Michigan enacted a renewable energy standard that required the state retail electricity providers, such as DTE, to generate at least 10 percent of their energy sources from renewable energy; that requirement increased to 12.5 percent to be met in both 2019 and 2020 and 15 percent in 2020.

Even with renewable energy policies in place, the data presented here indicates that carbon dioxide producing fossil fuels are likely to continue to dominate energy consumption for many decades. Policy makers must take stronger, more immediate approaches to address the dangers of climate change, which directly impacts our environment, economy and children.

Life Expectancy Declines in Michigan, US

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

The average life expectancy for Americans decreased in 2020, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, and the same goes for Michiganders.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, which is run by the Centers for Disease Control, the average life expectancy of an American in 2019 was 79 years of age and by 2020 that decreased 77 years of age. In 2021, the National Center for Health Statistics reported the average life expectancy of an American decreased to 76 years of age. For Michigan, the Michigan Department of Community Health did not have data for 2021, but for 2020 the average life expectancy of males and females, both white and black, declined.

The first chart below shows that between 2019 and 2020 the life expectancy for females declined from 80.6 years of age to 79.2; for males the average life expectancy declined from 75.7 years of age to 73.6. Prior to the reported 2022 average life expectancy ages, the last times they were as low was in 2002 for females (79 years of age) and 1999 for males (73.4 years of age).

According to the Centers for Disease Control, the top 10 contributing factors to death for those who live in Michigan in 2020 were:

•Heart Disease (117,087 deaths)

•Cancer (21,118)

•COVID-19 (11,362)

•Accidents (6,044)

•Stroke (5,873)

•Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease (5,644)

•Alzheimer’s Disease (4,860)

•Diabetes (3,408)

•Kidney Disease (1,940)

•And Influenza, Pneumonia (1,880)

While we know the leading causes of death, it is believed by the CDC that the pandemic likely drove the recent decline in the average life expectancy for Americans, across the board. In Michigan, COVID-19 itself attributed to 11,362 deaths in 2020. We also know that the number of deaths related to heart disease, accidents, influenza/pneumonia, kidney disease, diabetes and stroke increased between 2019 and 2020, as did the drug overdose rates.

So, while the numbers above help frame the story as to why Michigan’s average life expectancy is decreasing, digging into the data another way also tells another story.

The Michigan Department of Community Health publicly presents data on the average life expectancy broken down by both sex and race. As shown above, overall, females have long had a higher life expectancy over males. However, when further breaking down the data, we see that black females and white males in Michigan have had nearly the same life expectancy since 1910. In 2020, the average life expectancy for black females in Michigan was 73.3 years of age, a decrease of 3.3 years from 2019. The average life expectancy of white men in Michigan was 75.3 years of age in 2020, a decrease of 1.3 years from 2019. White females in Michigan experienced a 0.9 decrease in average life expectancy, which was the smallest decrease of the four groups. It was black males who had the largest decrease in life expectancy between 2019 and 2020 in Michigan at 4.8 years; in 2020 the average life expectancy for black males in Michigan was reported at 64.9 years of age. The last time the average life expectancy for black males was that low, or lower, was in 1995 when it was reported to be 64.4 years of age.

According to the Michigan Department of Community Health, the top leading causes of death for black males in Michigan in 2020 were:

•Heart Disease (2,430 deaths)

•COVID-19 (1,610)

•Malignant neoplasms (1,272)

•Accidents (799)

•Assault ( 512)

Note that assault is not even among the overall the top 10 causes for Michigan citizens overall.

While we mentioned the effect COVID-19 has had on life expectancy, as well as drug overdoses and the increase mortality rates related to other diseases, it should also be noted that number of individuals with access to health care has increased in recent years. So, as the average life expectancy is decreasing, more individuals are receiving greater access to health care, an odd result, but probably the effect of COVID has overtaken the benefits of better care.

Overall, decline in life expectancy for all sexes and races is concerning as it means people are dying earlier than they should be.

Inflation Puts Strain on Food Banks, Families in Southeastern Michigan

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

Rising inflation is hitting people all over the metropolitan area. For example, food banks are experiencing increased use, according to local media outlets. In the Metro-Detroit area major food banks include Gleaners Community Bank and Forgotten Harvest; these organizations not only supply food to those in need via their mobile food pantries and sponsored distribution events; they also provide food to soup kitchens, other organizations’ food pantries and other programs. According to MichiganRadio.org, in March of 2022 Gleaners Community Food Bank had about 13,000 visits to its mobile food pantries; the average number of visits in the six months prior to that was about 9,000. Feeding America West Michigan experienced a 34 percent increase in visits between February and March of 2022, according to the April 2022 Michigan Radio. A recent Model D article states that the Capuchin Soup Kitchen experienced a 25 percent increase in visits in the last year. Additionally, the same Model D Media article reports that Forgotten Harvest recorded a 30 percent increase month-to-month between April, May and June of this year. According to the article, Forgotten Harvest served 16,000 individuals in the month of June— 10,400 more than in the same month last year.

The charts below show just what inflation means to the average person. For example, in the first chart below, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,  the cost of meat, poultry, fish and eggs has increased by 8.4 percent in the Metro-Detroit area between July of 2021 and July of 2022. Dairy has increased by about 20 percent in that time frame and cereal and bakery goods have increased by about 19.3 percent. As we know, not only are food prices increasing but so is the cost of housing, utilities and gas. Gasoline has experienced the largest consumer price index increase in the last year at 63.9 percent.

Another way to view inflation is to understand how the value of a dollar, or $100, has changed. The chart below uses $100 in June of 2000 as a reference point to show inflation over the last 22 years. So, for example, $171.46 today would be the same as $100 in June of 2000. In other words, the purchasing power of the dollar has continually decreased, except between 2008 and 2009. Between 2020 and 2022 the purchasing power of the dollar has had the largest decrease since 2000. Between 2020 and 2022 there was a $21.52 difference in the power of the dollar. What you could buy for $149.74 in 2020 increased to $171.46. And again, these dollar figures are comparable to what $100 would be worth in 2000.

The data and anecdotal stories show just how inflation, coupled with supply chain issues, are impacting families throughout Michigan, Metro-Detroit and beyond. Seeing the writing on the wall, the Food Bank Council of Michigan received a $50 million one-time allocation in the 2022-23 State Budget to support ensuring families across Michigan could access food. These funds will increase infrastructure to better serve Michigan’s northern counties and Upper Peninsula through decreasing transportation expenses. The funding will also be used to conduct a Hunger Study, providing data to align federal, state and commodity programs to meet residents’ needs. According to the Food Bank Council, it is paying 40 percent more to keep up with food pantry demands across the state.
Additional allocations to food banks will certainly help with the increased use in food pantries, but the State Budget funding was a one-time allocation and the duration of the increased use in food pantries is unknown. The state, and federal government, though are working toward food security through other avenues as well. For example, about 1.3 million people from about 700,000 households in Michigan receive federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits through the state’s Food Assistance Program. Since the COVID pandemic began, all household have received the maximum benefits allowed for their size, and this practice continues. Following the May 2021 SNAP benefit amount increase, households of the following sizes are receiving the corresponding max benefit amount:
•
·One Person: $250  
·Two Persons: $459  
·Three Persons: $658  
·Four Persons: $835  
·Five Persons: $992  
·Six Persons: $1,190  
·Seven Persons: $1,316  
·Eight Persons: $1,504  
In August, households receiving SNAP benefits had an additional $95 added to their Bridge card to help further combat the affect inflation is having on food costs. How long this will last is unknown as federal approval of the increased SNAP benefits is necessary every month.
Schools are also working to create greater food security for students but either adopting a universal free lunch policy for all students, or at least sending free and reduced lunch applications to all households in the district. According to the Kids Count Data Center, 715,000 of Michigan public K-12 students qualified for free or reduced lunches’ income bracket in 2021. During that time though, all students—nationwide—received free lunches as part of a federal program implemented in the height of the COVID pandemic. This school year though, that policy does not exist and Michigan does not have a universal school lunch policy. Detroit Public Schools implemented one though, as have some others throughout the story. For the many districts that do not have such a policy, free and reduced lunch applications are being sent to all homes so eligible students can receive the service. For reduced meals, breakfast is $0.30 and lunch is $0.40. Income eligibility information can be found here.

We know that food banks are meeting, and serving, just some of the thousands upon thousands of individuals being impacted by the affects of inflation. However, long-term assistance to such food banks remains unknown, as direct long-term funding from state entities isn’t certain, and with economic concerns growing, donations may decrease. Food pantries serve a vital role in our community, as do programs such as SNAP and the Free and Reduced School Lunch Program. Food insecurity is an issue hundreds of thousands Americans face daily and long-term strategies to create food security need stronger framework and better funding.

To find a food bank in Michigan click here.

Housing Prices Begin to Stabilize, CPI Takes A Dip in Metro-Detroit

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

Michigan’s unemployment continues to decrease, for the tenth straight month, and the labor force in the state continues to grow. This year is looking much rosier than in 2020 when great uncertainty riddled the state, and the country. With job recovery following the peak of the pandemic, and an increase in revenues from the sales and use tax and federal funding the state is predicting about a $5 million surplus. While such a surplus can viewed as a sign of improved economic times, we must also recognize inflation is on the rise, and uncertainty still looms with COVID and the war in Ukraine. Recognizing that inflation is hitting the homes of most, if not all, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer was proposed sending $500 to working Michigan families in attempt to help ease the strain on our pockets. The Republic led majority legislature is discussing a $2.5 billion plan that would cut taxes. What will happen remains unknown, especially as the project surplus is just an estimate.

But the data below does tell that story that Michigan’s economy is on the rise while the costs of goods and services is also on the rise.

The chart below provides a more detailed look at how unemployment rates are currently, compared to year ago, at the local level. Across all seven counties in Southeastern Michigan unemployment rates were lower in July of 2022 as compared to July of 2021. Wayne County experienced the largest decrease in that year, with the unemployment rate decreasing by 4.9 percent. While Wayne County had the highest unemployment rate in the region in July of 2021 (9.6%), it did not have the highest rate in July of 2022. Rather, Monroe County currently had the highest unemployment rate in the region in July of 2022 at 5.4 percent. Livingston County continued to have the lowest unemployment rate in the region at 2.2 percent.


The charts below show the percent changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) on a month-to-month basis and a year-to-year basis for each month in years 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 in the Midwest Region. The CPI is a measure that examines the weighted average of prices of consumer goods and services, such as transportation, food, energy, housing and medical care. It is calculated by taking price changes for each item in the predetermined group of goods and averaging them.

The first  chart below highlights how the CPI changed on a month-to-month basis between 2019 and 2022. Currently in 2022, the region’s prices were down 0.2 percent. The highlights for the change include:

•Food prices increasing 1.2 percent for the month of July (prices for food at home increased 1.5 percent while prices for food outside of the home increased by 0.8 percent)
•Gas prices declining 8.8 percent, which contributed to the energy index decline of 5.7 percent
•Overall, prices without considering food and energy prices, rose by 0.3 percent from the month prior.

When examining the second chart, which shows how prices changed on a year-to-year basis,  we see how prices remain higher than previous years but that there was a decline in the CPI for the month of July between 2021 and 2022.

In July of 2022 the CPI was reported to be 8.6 percent above what it was the year prior (this is lower than the 9.5 percent increased experienced between June of 2021 and 2022). Contributing factors to the continued increase in the CPI include:

•Food prices increasing 12.4 percent over the last year
•Energy prices increasing 34.1 percent over the last year.
•New and used motor vehicles increasing 8.4 percent
•And household furnishings and operations increasing 10.8 percent.
While home prices in Metro-Detroit continue to increase from one month to the next, the rate at which they are increasing is beginning to taper off. According to the Case-Shiller Home Price Index, the average price of single-family dwellings sold was $172,560 in July of 2022; this was a mere $170 higher than the average family dwelling price in June. While the month-to-month increase has slowed down, a look at data from year’s prior is a reminder just how much the average price of a home has increased. Between July of 2022 and 2021 the average price increased $19,960 and between July of 2022 and 2014 the price increased $75,220.


Parks Need Priority in Funding to be Sustained

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

While park land is plentiful in Southeastern Michigan, its upkeep and protection is something necessary to keep it accessible to the public. As noted in our last post, park land throughout Michigan, and Southeastern Michigan, is made accessible through government entities, non-profits and/or private organizations. The funding of park lands and public spaces by non-profit and private organizations is at the will of the organizations’ board members and owners. However, funding and protecting park land through government entities is often more complex.

Government owned and operated parks throughout Michigan are funded primarily through tax dollars, but user fees, grants and donations also aid in their funding. At the state level, according to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), about 97 percent of funding for parks operations and maintenance is generated by user fees and royalty revenues. According to the MDNR, the breakdown is as follows:

  • 51%: Camping and lodging reservation fees
  • 26%: Recreation Passport sales
  • 15%: State-owned, oil, gas and mineral royalty revenues – which feed the Michigan State Parks Endowment Fund – (15%)
  • 5%: Concessions, shelter reservations and miscellaneous sources

Michigan’s General Fund tax dollars provide the remaining three percent of state parks funding.

At the County level, funding differs from one county to the next. For example, in Wayne County there is a millage (0.2459 mills) that funds county parks and distributes money to local communities for their parks. This millage means that the County’s general fund is not expected to make room for parks funding, but if those elected to represent Wayne County residents chose to do so in the general fund they can. Instead, through this additional millage that was voted on by the people (in 2016 and renewed in 2020) there is a dedicated funding source for a guaranteed amount of time. Through a parks millage, funding is dedicated to the creation, operation and/or upkeep of a park. When parks are funded through just the general fund the amount of money allocated to the parks, the programs and/or upkeep can vastly differ from year-to-year depending on the priorities of the elected bodies.

By simply putting a parks millage on the ballot, Wayne County showed that park improvements were a priority of theirs, and with 76 percent of voters supporting the 2020 ballot initiative this also showed that Wayne County residents also view parks as a priority.

In addition to Wayne County having a millage that helps support its parks and recreation opportunities so does Oakland, Washtenaw and St. Clair counties. In Southeastern Michigan, Monroe, Macomb and Livingston counties do not have additional funding mechanisms to support their parks.

Despite Monroe, Macomb and Livingston counties not having county-wide millages to help fund parks, there are cities in Livingston and Macomb counties that have millages to help support their parks.

For example, in Livingston County the Howell Area Parks and Recreation is supported by a 0.75 millage. This millage not only created the recreation agency that services Genoa, Marion, Oceola and Howell townships it also finances the parks and services the residents of these townships use and rely on.

In Macomb County, the cities of Roseville and Eastpointe created a joint recreation authority through a 1 mill tax levy that was originally approved by voters 2011. This millage allows the authority to operate, offer services (which produce revenue, also allowing the authority to operate) and maintain and update facilities and parks. Municipalities such as Washington and Macomb townships also have millages (one for each township, they do not have a joint authority) that support their parks and their recreation opportunities.

So, while tax dollars are a primary source of funding for our parks, and the opportunities they provide, the commitment to their allocation varies. Additionally, commitment to the funding of public parks comes from other sources as well. For example, there are the revenues generated from their use (fee structures differ from one park to the next, one program to the next and one municipality to the next), donations offered from various people and groups and grants that municipalities receive.

The grants that municipalities can apply for to support their parks are rather plentiful; the MDNR, the Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments, Ralph C. Wilson Jr. Foundation are just some of many organizations that allocate grand fund to support parks and recreation opportunities. However, grants are often a one-time allocation of funds and cannot be relied on to ensure a park, its staffing, its programs and more will continue from one year to the next.

To ensure the park land, and the programs associated with it, we all benefit from remains accessible and useable we must create dedicated funding mechanisms. Millages are one source, but must be approved by voters. And, while general fund dollars flow into a municipality on an annual basis, the allocation of those funds differs annually.

Park Land is Plentiful in Southeastern Michigan

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

In Southeastern Michigan there are more than 2,300 parks which are owned and operated by either the federal government, State of Michigan, a local municipality, the Huron Clinton Metroparks Authority or a private entity. The footprint of these parks covers more than 214,000 acres and much of these parks are concentrated in the more heavily populated areas of Southeastern Michigan, such as Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties. For example, in the City of Detroit there are 359 total parks, which range in size, type (passive, active, trails, etc.) and ownership (city, state, private).  Parks are viewed as an essential service because they increase economic value, provide health and environmental benefits and create an aspect of community, allowing for greater socialization. Furthermore, understanding how accessible parks and recreation amenities are can help communities prioritize improvements that serve more people.

In Southeastern Michigan 1,847 of the parks in the region, or 80 percent, are owned and operated by local municipalities. For example, of the 359 parks in Detroit about 350 are owned and operated by the City itself, the others are owned and operated by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources or private entities. Private entities in the region own and operate the second highest number of parks in the region, followed by counties. The way in which counties prioritize parks in the region varies greatly. For example, in Macomb County there are only two county parks—Freedom Hill, which serves as an entertainment center, and the Macomb Orchard Trail, which is a 26 mile long multiuse path that is overseen by a board comprised of a county representative and one person from each community that also pays into the system. In Oakland County there are 13 parks and in Washtenaw County there are well over 20 different parks, many of which are nature preserves.

Public parks are largely funded by public monies and each municipality’s priorities are reflected in how their dollars are spent. So, in the case of Washtenaw and Oakland counties, for example, we see that the counties themselves place a higher priority on access to parks. The emphasis on parks and recreation opportunities in communities can not only be seen by how the general fund dollars are allocated to such amenities, but also by if there are additional taxes voted on by residents to further increase parks and recreation amenities and access to them.

While funding allocations to parks differ from one county, and community, to the next, we do know that access to parks in the region is easily attainable for most. As noted, majority of the parks are concentrated in more heavily populated areas, but according to the Southeastern Michigan Council of Government’s (SEMCOG) 2019 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, parks and recreation opportunities are accessible within a 10-minute drive for nearly every household in the region. Additionally, according to the study, a 10-minute bike ride provides access to parks for 89 percent of households in the region. The study does show that for 42 percent of households in the region access to parks within 10 minutes of walking or use public transportation is not attaintable, posing a barrier of access to those who may not have a reliable use of their transportation. The lack of a strong public transportation system in the region does prove to be problematic for those who want/need reliable access to parks, especially the region’s largest parks. Since larger parks are located in less populated areas those without reliable transportation of their own, who may rely on public transportation, will have greater difficulty in reaching the larger parks. SEMCOG’s Access to Core Services report state that 7 percent of all households and 13 percent of transit-dependent households are within a 30-minute transit trip to a park greater than 200 acres in size.

The maps below highlight where parks are located in the region.

As noted, parks are viewed as an essential amenity within a community. However, funding to maintain and improve parks and recreation amenities is also vital to ensure such access. While we know majority of the region can access parks and recreation opportunities currently, we will further look into some of the funding structures that allow for such access in a later post and evaluate their long-term viability. We will also look deeper into the access of parks as it relates to the socioeconomic makeups of communities in Southeastern Michigan.

Broadband Not Accessible for All in Metro-Detroit

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

Even in the age of the internet, accessibility is limited for many, including in Southeastern Michigan.

According to the Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), there are about 1.6 billion homes in the seven county region with broadband and about 250,000 without it. In other words about 87 percent of homes in the region have internet and 13 percent are without it.

Access to broadband connectivity is two-fold though.

In a small percentage of the region there is no connectivity. In Southeastern Michigan, 99 percent of homes have access to broadband and 1 percent do not; this equals to out about 1.9 homes having access to broadband and about 10,000 not having access. The first map below highlights where any kind of access to the internet lacks. Each county in the region is affected, with very small neighborhoods in even some of the most populated areas (Detroit, Canton, West Bloomfield, etc.) experiencing some dead zones. However, the more rural areas in the region (north Macomb County, western Livingston and western Washtenaw counties) and several areas throughout St. Clair and Macomb counties) have much larger areas where access to broadband does not exist. While the land area where access is lacking looks large, the population that lives in these areas must also be considered. As noted, overall, there are about 10,000 people who do not have access to the internet due to service not existing where they live.

The first chart below highlights those who are underserved by broadband, which not only includes those who do not have access to broadband at all but also those who do not have access to highspeed internet (meaning they may have access to slower internet that does not allow for extensive streaming, downloading, etc.). St. Clair County has the highest percentage of homes that are underserved at  7.1 percent, followed by Monroe County where 2.5 percent of homes are underserved. Oakland County has the lowest percentage of homes that are underserved at 0.4 percent.

***All data in this post is provided by SEMCOG***

While the existence of broadband infrastructure is a concern, so is overall access, especially for those who have limited access to the infrastructure. The chart below shows the percentage of homes that do not use the internet. Wayne County has the highest percentage of homes that do not use the internet at 19 percent and, conversely, Washtenaw County has the lowest percentage of homes that do not use the internet at 7 percent.

Factors that play into a home being able to obtain broadband include income, age and race. For example, in Wayne County, 49 percent of households with an average income of $20,000 a year or less do not have the internet. This income bracket has the highest percentage of homes without internet across the region. When examining aging groups that data shows that 33 percent of the 65-years-of-age and older population does not have the internet; this is the age bracket with the highest percentage of individuals without access. And, finally, 13 percentage of the black population in Wayne County does not use the internet. Blacks have  the highest percentage of non-usage in Wayne County, and in every other county in the region.

Access to the internet is vital for many. This was fully demonstratated when COVID made remote work and school a necessity. As our society continues to evolve, access to this lifeline must become more accessibility to the population despite their location, income, race and age. As the data shows, race, income and age certainly play a factor in accessibility so breaking down those barriers must be a priority, as should developing stronger infrastructure in more rural areas. 

Locally, Washtenaw County has committed more than $13 million in American Rescue Act Funding to expand affordable and equitable high-speed broadband infrastructure to unserved and underserved communities. This is part of a larger investment by Washtenaw County which is focused on connecting every to high-speed broadband infrastructure.

Additionally, the City of Detroit is creating a test fiber-to-the-home connectivity project in Hope Village. This project will connect about 2,000 homes to affordable service. This project is also being funded by the American Rescue Act.

With millions of dollars dispersed to every county in American Rescue Act Funding, this should certainly become a priority for more places than just Washtenaw County.

Induced Abortions in Michigan: The Numbers

by Drawing Detroit | Leave a comment

Recent news that that Roe v. Wade may be overturned in an upcoming US Supreme Court ruling has many examining how such a decision will affect individuals across the country. In Michigan, a 1931 law that defines abortion as a felony could go into affect. This 91-year-old law states that it is illegal to perform abortions in many circumstances, including in cases of rape and incest; it also states that it is illegal to use drugs to induce abortions.

Currently, with Roe v. Wade, still standing, women are legally able to obtain abortions in Michigan with some restrictions, including:

•That a patient must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage the patient from having an abortion, and then wait 24 hours before the procedure is provided;

•What coverage, if any, an insurance policy provides (according to the Michigan Department of Community Health 96 percent of reported induced abortions had a self pay source of payment);

•The parent of a minor must consent before an abortion is provided;

•An abortion may be performed at or after viability only if the patient’s life is endangered.

Not only would Michigan be one of at least 26 states where access to safe abortions would be heavily restricted, but thousands of women would be negatively impacted.

According to the Michigan Department of Community Health, there were 29,669 induced abortions in Michigan in 2020, which was a rate of 15.8 induced abortions per 1,000 Michigan women aged 15-44. This is the highest induced abortion rate in Michigan since 1993, when a rate of 16.1 induced abortions per 1,000 Michigan women aged 15-44 was performed.

When delving further into Michigan’s induced abortion data we see that majority of women were 25 years of age or older. According to the data, 32 percent of Michigan women who had an induced abortion were 30 years of age or older, and 31 percent of women were between the ages of 25-29. Eight percent of women who had an induced abortion were 20 years of age or younger.

Additionally, of those induced abortions performed in Michigan in 2020 nearly 90 percent were performed in freestanding outpatient surgical facilities. According to the Guttmacher Institute, there were 30 facilities providing abortions in Michigan in 2017, and 21 of those were clinics. Also in 2017, about 87 percent of Michigan counties had no clinics that provided abortions, and 35% of Michigan women lived in those counties.

The data presented in this post shows that many women have abortions for many reasons—including for their health and safety. Every year, the women who chose to have an induced abortion are able to receive one in legal surgical facilities and often pay for the procedure out-of-pocket, as highlighted above. With the possible overruling of Roe v. Wade, thousands of Michigan women, and women across the country, could very well lose the option to have a safe, and legal induced abortion.

In anticipation of the ruling, some options to safeguard legal and safe abortions are occurring: 1)Gov. Gretchen Whitmer filed a lawsuit in April of 2022 calling the Michigan Supreme Court to recognize that the Michigan constitution affords women reproductive rights and agency over their bodies. 2)Planned Parenthood has filed a similar lawsuit, through the Michigan Court of Claims, seeking to declare that the state’s constitution protects reproductive autonomy. 3)A petition drive launched by Reproductive Freedom for All seeks to amend the state constitution to affirm abortion rights. In order to place this on the November ballot 424,000 valid signatures are needed by mid-July. ●

Another means to safeguard abortion access in Michigan would be through approved legislation by the state legislature. Bills to repeal the 1931 ban have been introduced, but not brought forward for a vote.