INDEPENDENCE TOWNSHIP: A TOWNSHIP IN TRANSITION, A STUDY OF SUBURBANIZATION IN A SELECTED PORTION OF THE RURAL-URBAN FRINGE OF OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN Thai: for the Dogm of M. S.- MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Louis A. Vargha 1958 IIIWTIHWWIHWH 31293 01068 9952 5...: \/\... 992 310!“ I I ‘I‘NI I w INDEPENDENCE TOWNSHIP: A TOWNSHIP IN TRANSITION, A STUDY OF SUBURBANIZATION IN’A SELECTED PORTION OF THE RURAL—URBAN FRINGE OF OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN by Louis A. Vargha An Abstract Submitted to the College of Agriculture of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics 1958 Q‘ n g“ "nu AIS In. F. 2v ‘- au. Louis A. Vargha ABSTRACT This study is centered on the transitional problems of a township changing from a fundamentally rural one to an urbanized one. Independence Township in northern Oakland County, part of the Detroit Standard Metropolitan Area, was selected as the case study. Independence Township is located six miles north of Pontiac on U.S. 10. The area in which it is located is characterized by rolling land with occasionally severe local relief. There are also a number of small lakes; the result of interrupted drainage in the area. The township is One which was not particularly well— suited for agriculture, but which does have a potential for urban uses. Many fine home sites are available, although the tepography presents problems in many sections. The rural-urban fringe is defined in this study as an area in Which there is strong competition for the use of agricultural land for non-agricultural uses, and in which there may be conflicts between "newcomers" and former resi— dents over services which the political un t or §g_hgg'units such as a school district will provide. The fringe area is an important area. Here the pat- ternsof a future urban complex are develoced and jelled. v a 5» o r a: 2 . Au. . v .. ‘A. ."'~q .- “‘~g '1‘. . c . .t .. 1 ~ fi . C. u a. u u k .. A~. . I Y-.. :u L... .p u. 1.... a . .I Q 5 v ‘ ~ I . up.“ I . Qua a u n K n: n x I u o a ~v 3.4 a~. A. Louis A. Vargha The rapid rate at which our large urban centers have been and are Spreading has made the fringe an extensive phenomenon. The emergence of the fringe is related directly to the rise of the automobile and the development of a network of all-weather roads to serve it. The rate at which fringe areas are growing is in~ creasing. Before 1920 the growth of central cities in the United States greatly exceeded that of the urban and rural rings surrounding them. By 1,50 this situation had been rc~ versed and the great shift in pepulation has been to the less densely settled and less pepulous fringe areas of the metro— politan ring. In Michigan the fringe as a part of the metrOpolitan complex is particularly important. In 1950 seventy—two and six-tenths per cent of the pepulation of Michigan lived in standard metrOpolitan areas or in metrOpolitan centers (p0p~ ulation of 25,000 or over). The increasingly urban composition of our population and the rapid growth of the fringe in our urban complexes makes the problems of the fringe area important to many people. Independence Township has changed in many ways over the years following its settlement in the 1830's. Its agri~ cultural pepulation grew until 1870 when a peak of 1,586 persons was reached. From 1870 to 1920 its pepulation de- creased slowly but steadily to a figure of 1,081. 1920 marked a turning point and its pepulation started growing Louis A. Vargha again as urban peoples began their exodus from the central city. Growth was slow; in 1990 the pepulation was 2,280. The period of World War II and the subsequent period of 1946 to 1950, during which many single homes were built in out- lying areas, raised the population to u,170. Since 1950, however, the growth rate has been accel- erated dramatically. Between 1950 and 1957 the pepulation almost doubled. Growth such as this implies increased platting and construction activity and also increased school pepulations and the need for a township to assume services and duties which were not necessary when only or primarily an agricul~ tural pepulation was served. Between 1950 and 1957 forty-three subdivisions were platted in Independence Township, containing 1810 lots. This means that some 900 acres of land have been shifted into residential use. The rapid shifting of land to urban uses necessi— tates the consideration of the direction of land use. Inde— pendence Township has a zoning ordinance established in the late l9h0's. The ordinance is not based on long-range plan- ning considerations and the mapped portion is changed fre- quently. Another problem raised by increased platting activity is the coordination of street systems into a functioning overall system. Interior land is often isolated by shallow road w.- _..J.-- .v-ui" l‘ Louis A. Vargha frontage developments leaving a legacy of hard to develOp land. In an area such as Independence Township topography presents problems which are often poorly handled. Subdivision regulations are not used by townships to maximum effectiveness. Zoning also is not a panacea. It is a planning tool and not planning as is often assumed. Increased school pepulations and the need for town- ship services put a strain on the township which has a narrow tax base of primarily residential prOperties. Taxes have risen steadily since l9h0. The average rate in Michigan's rural townships is nine-tenths of a per cent of assessed value. In Independence Townshi the rate in 1957 was three and a half per cent based on a 19u7-u9 dollar or five and a half per cent based on the actual dollar value. This is a dramatic difference and helps indicate why agricultural land may shift prematurely into non—agricultural uses. The conclusions w.ich.were drawn are that (1) town- ship officials are often unaware of the ways in which prob- lems may be solved; (2) other agencies such as county planning commissions are not helping and often are unable to help local officials solve their problems; (3) enabling legislation for planning at the township level is inadequate and hamstrings efficient planning; (4) taxation as a method of directing land use should be explored within the framework of existing precedents; and (5) information about the importance of plan- ning problems, methods of solution, legal powers, and sources Louis A. Vargha of assistance should be disseminated. Fringe problems can be overcome, but it is necessary to coordinate the efforts of all the agencies concerned with separate problem areas and to inform peeple of their stake in planning the future of their community. , ._ J? «/” / a“: ‘: ,gg ‘ - Approved \ "5 C C ‘13.. A /t’.. 54(0"4“C_L up: r Pgofessor Or.“ an. IA-IOA‘. - - ' ll:..-.. INDEPENDENCE TOWNSHIP: A TOWNSHIP IN TRANSITION, A STUDY OF SUBURBANIZATION IN A SELECTED PORTION OF THE RURAL—URBAN FRINGE OF OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN by Louis A. Vargha A Thesis Submitted to the College of Agriculture of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics 1958 \) *7 Approved by/" AHLL‘ 0 fig i/defc‘adkd ‘9 on "I a... r. a O u ‘U ‘4‘ [a AI in .i‘ ‘ a ‘-~ C~. . . “I 1 ‘ 2" fi. . \ ~.“: ‘< a a .,‘. 'l .. 1 ‘x ' x s; P N‘ F ‘1 A n . ' \ “' “Ly A CKNOWLEDGEM ENTS Among the many who have indirectly or directly helped me in the preparation of this study the following individuals or groups of individuals have my most sincere thanks and appreciation. Dr. Lawrence Boger, head of the Department of Agri- cultural Economics, made possible the existence of the re- search project by financial assistance and flexibility in ac- cepting my entrance from another discipline into a new area of study. The COOperation and assistance of the people of Inde- pendence Township, Harold Doebbler, the Township Clerk, Max Solby, Floyd Andrews, the Township Supervisor at the time of the study's beginnings, Paul Reid, Director of the Detroit MetrOpolitan Area Regional Planning Commission, and George Skrubb, Director of Planning for Oakland County, enabled me to procure information easily and freely. The relationships and experiences with these peeple are ones that will be re- membered warmly. I also wish to mention my fellow graduate students for their patience, understanding, and constructive criti— cisms of the project. The association has been a rewarding one personally and professionally. 11 Adequate expression cannot be given for the value of the guidance of Dr. Raleigh Barlowe. His succinct comments, and insights into the area of study, have enabled me to con- sider additional lines of attack and study. This associa- tion, too, has been a personally rewarding one for me. This association has imparted to me an entirely new awareness of the breadth of land economics and the need for constant study to keep abreast of developments in the field. Finally, my wife, whose understanding of the need for "nights in the shop," and seemingly erratic behavior on my part, has preserved my sanity and amazingly enough hers too, must receive my heartfelt admiration. My thanks also must finally find expression for her role as assistant to Dr. Boger as financial underwriter of my graduate work. Hers too is the credit for the typing of the "rough draft" of the thesis. There was some griping about all of this; she's no angel, but on the whole her performance should be recognized and my indebtedness acknowledged. 111 TABLE OF CONTENT Page A CKNO‘AIIJEI‘DG'WEDIT S O O O O O O O O O C O O O O I O O C 1 1 LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O C O O C O O 0 O O O 0 Vi LIST OF FIGURES o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o V111 Chapter I o IN:‘RODIIGT'IOINT o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o l Purposes and Objectives . . . . . . . . 3 Selection of Study Area . . . . . . . . 3 Collection of Data . . . . . . . . . . . 5 II. THE RURAL-URBAN FRINGE . . . . . . . . . . 8 Definitional Discussion of the Fringe . 9 The Spread of the Fringe Problem . . . . 22 I I I o IEID @13er EIICE '11:)T WIS £1ng a o o o o o o o o o o 3 8 Geographical Location . . . . . . . . . 38 Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Land Forms of Independence Township . . 41 History of Agriculture in Independence Township . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 IV. URBAN GRO"TH IN INDEPEBDENCE TC"N HIP PRIOR To 1914’6 C O O O O I O O I O O O C O C O C . 1+8 V. POST WORLD WAR II DEVELOPMENT OF INDEPEND— ENCE TOWNSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Construction Activity. . . . . . . . 65 Platting o o o o o o o c o o o o o l 73 Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 SChOOlS O O O O 0 I O O O O O O O O O 8 Taxation . O O O O O O O O O C O O O O C 106 171. PROBLEM AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Planning, Land Classification and Zoning 115 Platting . . p g o o o o o o o o o o o 118 "Sub-Standard" Housing . . . . . . . . . 126 School Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 iv Chapter VII. PROBL? \fIII. Premature Subdivision and Speculation Township Services Supporting Facilities Associated with Urban DevelOpment Geological and Topographic Limitations The Flexibility and Aptituce of Town- ship Government Tax Load and Narrowness of the Tax Base and Supporting Facilities for Urban DeveIOpment Zoning and Platting The Flexibility and Aptitude of .Town-. School Facilities Speculation and Premature Subdivision General Applicability of Observations and Recommendations Areas in which Further Desirable Conclusions BI BLIOGRAPHY . APPENDIX . on Land Use. ship Systems . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (HYPOTHETICAL) TO THE IS IN INDEPE NDENOE TONNSHIP AND OTEIERS Research Seems Page 127 129 131 132 139 139 141 143 um 141+ 1H5 we ms 150 153 157 Table I. II. III. IV. ‘VI. VIII. VIII. 12X. 54 LIST OF TABLES Growth of Standard MetrOpolitan Areas and Urban Places in the State of Michigan and the CorreSponding Changes in the Percent— age of the State's POpulaticn Residing in Them. The Figures are for Census Years Since 1900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Growth of Individual Standard Metropolitan Areas, Metropolitan Centers, and Urban Places, 1900-1950 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michigan Farm POpulation . . . . . . . . . Growth of the Central City; Urban Ring and Rural Ring, Detroit, Michigan 1900-1950, in Actual Numbers and Percentage Growth of the Central City, Urban Ring, and Rural Ring, Detroit, Michigan, 1900-1950 . . . . . . . POpulation changes of Oakland County, Inde- pendence Township and the Village of Clark- Ston Q o o o a o o O O I o O O O O O O O 0 Population Growth of Independence Township and Adjacent Townships 1940, 1950, 195A—1957 Subdivision Plats of Record for Independence Township and Adjacent Townships 1950-1957 . Average Number of Lots Per Subdivision Plat of Record, Independence Township and Adjacent TOWEShipS 1950-1957 c o o o o o O o o o o 0 Total Lots Platted - Independence Township . and Adjacent Townships 1959-1957 . . . . . Subdivision Plats of Record in Independence Township 1900—19u6 and a Calculation of the Percentage of Lots Improved by August 1956 By Periods vi 29 32 61 66 75 76 77 80 Table XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV . XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. Subdivision Plats of Record in Independence Township, 1946—1956, and a Calculation of the Percentage Improved by August 1, 1956 For Different Platting Periods . . . . . . . 81 Independence Township Children, Pre-School and SChOOl POPUlatiOD o o o o o o o o o o 0 9b Enrollment in High School and Elementary School Clarkston Community Schools 1946—56 Total Enrollment and Percentage Enrolled in Elementary Grades . . . . .,. . . . . . . . 95 School Plant Clarkston Community Schools 1952-1956 a o o o o o o o o o o I o I o O O 105 Tax Situation 19b0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Tax Situation 19h4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Tax Situation 1949 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Tax Situation 1953 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Tax Situation 1957 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 vii Figure I. II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. Xa Xb Xc Xd Xe XI. XII. XIII. LIST OF FIGURES 5.14ng 'S in I‘IiChiga-n o o o o o o o o o o DetI'OIt SOI‘IIAO o o o o o o o o o o o o o Lansing S.M.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grand Ra.pids SOL-10A. o o o o o o o o o o POpulation Growth of the Detroit S.M.A. 1900-1950 Central City, Urban Ring, and Rural Ring 0 O O I O O O O O O O O I O 0 Percentage Growth of Central City, Urban Ring and Rural Ring, Detroit S.M.A., by ten year periods 1900—1950 . . . . . . . TOpography of Independence Township . . . Independence Township, Drainage Area, Drainage Systems, Marsh and Lakes. . . . Land Types of Independence Township . . . Construction and Platting Activity Prior to 19b’6 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Construction and Platting Activity 19h6—5O Construction and Platting Activity 1951—52 Construction and Platting Activity 1953-54 Construction and Platting Activity 1955-56 Round Lake Woods Subdivision . . . . . . Clarkston Ridge Estates: The Result of the Isolation of Land . . . . . . . . . . Pepulation of Independence Township 1870- 1957. and 1960, 1970 Projections by the Detroit Metropolitan Area Regional Plan- ning Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii 42 1+3 an 59 63 m“: v." A u. . n'i' . r"? n "‘I W..’ Q... I... 1 V It.... 9..., Ag... u".‘ . “3.? $.‘;. \... ‘- . I‘-. u. . ~ 's 4‘. 5| U) (1' 1 1(1) '(f (I) ’71 H, U) Q7 A, V A DC . l ' l O) U) 'l ‘ J (I) (1(0 (I) (2U) '71 c) I~’ (u I—J m (2 I0 (I) (I) 1-; 01 Figure XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. XXI. XXII. XXIII. I XXIV . £3 XXVI. XXVII. XXVIII. XXIX. Pepulation Increases 19u0~l9b7 Independ~ ence, Orion and White Lake Townships . . . . Residential Building Permits 1950—56 by Year. Independence, Orion, Pontiac, Springfield, Waterford and White Lake Townships . . . . . . . . . . Spatial Distribution of 1940 Pepulation by Political Unit for Independence Township and Adjacent Townships . . . . . . . . . . . Spatial Distribution of 1950 pepulation by Political Unit for Independence Township and Adjacent Townships . . . . . . . . . . . Spatial Distribution of 1957 Population by Political Unit for Independence Township and Adjacent Townships . . . . . . . . . . . Subdivision Plats of Record 1950-1957 Inde— pendence, White Lake and Orion Townships . . Total Lots Platted 1950—1957 Independence, White Lake and Orion Townships . . . . . . . School Enrollment Clarkston Community SChOOlS 1946“].956 o o o o o 0 o o o o o o 0 School Census of Individual Districts lens— Consolidation with Clarkston Community SChOOlS O O O 0 O l O 0 C O O O O O O O O O Q School Census (Children Ages 5—19) Clarksten Community Schools 19b5—1957 . . . . . . . . . Percentage of Total School Enrollment Clark~ ston Community Schools in the Primary Grades, 19u6‘1956 o o o o o 0 School Districts of Independence Township 19 '3 O O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Consolidation of Schools 1950 . . . . . . . . Consolidation of Schools 1951 and 1952 . . . School Pepulation of Clarkston Community Schools by District 1945 . . . . . . . . . . School Pepulation of the Individual Fraction- al Districts Comprising the Clarkston Commun— ity Schools 1945, 19u7. . . . . . . . . . . ix Pa 0‘ e 67 68 69 7o 71 74 78 9O 91 96 97 98 99 100 . 101 . 102 ‘3 .... n - .-. s #— "no-c Obu“. ova-cu..- lb... —. 'Q-v-t-Q N-.- - - on“ .-.. noun... an..." . -~'~.. 1”"... "“Ql ‘ Figure Page XXX. School Pepulation of the Individual Fraction- a1 Districts Comprising the Clarkston Com— munity Schools 1947, 1949 . . . . . . . . . 103 XXXI. Photographs of two Examples of Sub—standard Site Planning and one Excellent Example of the Use of Site Amenities . . . . . . . . . . 120 XXXII. Tepography of Jack's Greens Lake Subdivision 122 XXXIII. Poor Interior Circulation in Platted Areas . 124 XXXIV. The Isolation of Interior Land by Irregular Pareelling and Shallow Frontage DeveIOpment . 125 XXXV. Commercial DeveIOpment at the Junction of UOSO-lo and Li-15. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 133 XXXVI. Photographs of Two Lakes with.Adjacent Land Suitable for Development of Sites for Homes of S25 000 or above in Cost. . . . . . . . . 135 "(VJ , CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The patterns established as man extends his cities are enduring. They are costly to change, and when we attempt to adapt them to the shifting concept of the highest and best use costs rapidly accumulate, not only in money terms but also in terms of social costs. urban redeveIOpment programs throughout the country provide us with evidence to support the above statements. RedeveIOpers working with patterns which have proven to be poorly adapted to the shifting of uses within the city find the costs to be very high. In terms of money, the cost of condemning land and improvements, changing or destroying util- ities, providing new utilities, and designing and implementing a plan is prodigious. The social costs involved in relocating families and firms and in severing social contacts of many kinds defy calculation. The emergence of the expanding urban pattern occurs at the fringe. Here the pattern is plastic; the melding of it is vital. The early pattern which begins to take form in- fluences greatly the development which.ultimately will take Place. These patterns will influence the deve10pment's direc- tion, its intensity, its rate, and its quality. Oliver Wendell -1- Seizes, ices not is with deterior tie fri: ’ 79-1339.“ -2- Holmes, the famous jurist, once said, “The government which does not meet the needs of its society must fall,“ and so it is with an urban pattern. It will be rejected and it will deteriorate; thus if the expanding urban pattern is molded at the fringe, and the early pattern influences the ultimate de- velOpment, the importance of the fringe is established. One could say that this influence is both direct and indirect. An early deveIOpment of residential units border- ing on the sub-standard may directly affect the quality of neighboring deve10pment and also the timing of the development of adjacent land. The neighboring deve10pmcnt adds more vari- ables, of course, and the ultimate effects of the interaction can only be conjectured. Indirectly the needs of an increas- ingly urban population may affect the rate at which agricul- tural land becomes available for residential construction. This may happen if property taxes are increased, in an attempt to meet these needs, to a level high enough to convince farm~ are that their tax load is too heavy and that the value of their land for urban deveIOpment outweighs the returns avail- able from farming. The township is the political division within which this dynamic process emerges and develops. Since the townm ship is basically a rural unit of government, the problems posed by an urban 'invasion' are foreign to it. The urban encroachment may or may not bring the realization to respon» sible officials that the township is now in transition. In transition it is neither urban nor rural, and the problems need by atnpei for»A e—vh. Pirates *— vith cne Iizhigan Characte to an ur tie tom 1318, 821 “-‘r: t1». Prcvide . '1‘}: m: ‘ tOYXg‘: “0:31:11 tEl‘n 0f ‘ {7) disc- '11]. be Net 0n . 53"». “yea : 30‘- h ~3- posed by both are present. Here, in this unit, the die is stamped and the pattern of a future urban environment is formed. Purposes and Objectives The objectives of this study are to: (1) illustrate with one township, Independence Township, Oakland County, Michigan, the emergence of the urban pattern; (2) show the characteristic problems associated with a change from a rural to an urban pattern of land uses; (3) analyze the ability of the township form of government to adapt to the changing prob- lems, and its ability to work with the emerging patterns and carry them through the various stages of development; (4) provide an insight into the major problem areas associated with this process of transition; (5) indicate ways in which a township may be aided in adapting to transition, and aided in ceping with the associated problems; (6) analyze the pat- tern of changes and develOpment in Independence Township; and (7) discuss some problem areas with the hepe that further work will be initiated on a much broader scale to analyze the im- pact on the eventual disposition and development of land re— sources in the urban pattern. Selection of the Study Area The study was motivated by the need for isolating and stating specifically the problems which a rural area encoun- ters in the process of urbanization. Since it was felt that the Detroit metrOpolitan area ~4— would in all probability provide a more accelerated growth pattern, it was decided to focus the study on this particular region of the state. The choice of this particular area may be Open to criticism; however since the metrOpolitan area of Detroit includes a pepulation of nearly h,OO0,000 and a land area of over 2,000 square miles, the extent and importance of the fringe in our large metrOpolitan areas should be evident. In the late spring of 1956 various methods of sample selection were discussed. The desirability of studying town- ships in the various divisions of the metrOpolitan area was recognized. The movements in Oakland County to the north and in wayne County to the west and south vary in detail. The herculean proportions of this approach eliminated it from further consideration. It was then prOposed to select one township and pre- sent it as a case study. The rationale behind this was the belief or assumption that although the causal factors behind urban growth in various directions are dissimilar in detail, a la Hoyt's sector theory, in general their resulting encroach- ment into rural areas and the associated problems are basically similar. It was felt that the detailed presentation of the changes in a township and an attempt to delineate problem areas would be useful since an awareness and definition of the problematic situation is the essential first step to the solution of any problem. After it was determined to select one township as a case study, it was a problem to decide which township to select. The direc‘ was inten ascentra' suggesting a: th as: provide a 321‘ H“ Ti "as done “i an 1:: £99 in t1. -5- The director of planning for Oakland County, George Skrubb, was interested in the study and requested that the study be concentrated on one of the northernmost Oakland townships, suggesting Independence Township. His suggestion was honored on the assumption that his familiarity with the area would provide a good background with which to select a study area. Collection of Data The first data studied was U.S. Census data. This was done to obtain an idea of the past history of the township and an insight into the development which one could expect to see in the field. The minor civil division data pertaining to agriculture was studied for the same reason. School records from the Michigan Department of Education were also studied. The summer of 1956 was spent mapping land use in the field, becoming familiar with the physical features of the area, and gathering pepulation, platting, and building activ- ity data from township records, the Oakland County Planning Commission, and the Detroit Metropolitan Area Regional Plan- ning Commission. Township officials were interviewed and from time to time asked for Opinions on certain events or situations. Their c00peration was important and they pro- vided a wealth of information unobtainable from other sources. A small random sample of suburban residents was inter- viewed in the fall of 1956. This initial sample (fifty cases) was used to determine whether further sampling would prove to be worthwhile. It did not appear to be particularly useful t: pursue there on] my cue: ccvered 1 culture. is int-e: they Drew traship and land ‘- a“. '5‘ 5128 P3551519 1 ‘Ian in‘ 33! ECCeg ‘"~0u2¥ t35+ I . 'C"»« a.“ M T .E ‘J ~C§na ‘ d -5.. to pursue this approach further. Many residents had lived there only a short time and did not feel prepared to answer many questions on the questionnaire. (Sample questionnaires are included in the appendix.) Farmers were interviewed that winter, and it was dis- covered that only six farmers were engaged full time in agri- culture. Formal statistical analysis was thus ruled out. The interviews with those remaining were worthwhile since they provided an insight into the previous land uses in the township, the impact of urbanization on agriculture via taxes and land values, and soil conditions which could not be de- termined in the absence of a detailed soil survey. The data gathered was then organized and analyzed for possible implications. Much of this analysis was inductive in an informal sense, 1.6., not by statistical method. This was necessitated by the impossibility of gathering all the data necessary and in some cases any at all, for many of the relationships determined informally there is no established recording of statistics. This introduces a possible bias, although the relationships determined this way are never treated as anything but hypothetical relationships. The reader can determine for himself whether or not relationships thus devolved appear to be logical and consistent for at present there is no other test. Tax data was gathered from the records of the Oakland County Tax Commission and the Oakland County Tax Equalization Board.in January of 1958. At this time further data was cbtained Ru ' 31 rn d .‘h‘itb hnc Toy 6 0 5532516 Mum VLQCF o: Viied by ‘L ‘ ‘ I-E.‘ 61: -7- obtained from the Oakland County Planning Commission on building permits issued, platting and pOpulation in Indepen- dence Township and the neighboring townships. This was used to supplement data previously compiled and to check the ac- curacy of some trends which were predicted from previous data. After this data was worked into the framework pro- vidsd by previous analysis, problem areas were delineated and their significance weighed and coordinated. CHAPTER II THE RURAL-URBAN FRINGE The rural—urban fringe has been studied many times, yet as of this moment we have no operational definition of it. Various definitions have been tendered and have received varying receptions from workers in the field. Approaches to the definition have been deve10ped through sociological studies and agricultural investigations. These aspects of the problem are important, but taken together they are still incomplete. The urban aspect is, of course, essential. The sociologists, both rural and urban, who have worked in this area have been concerned with the individual's integration and behavior, or to quote McKain and Burnight,1 'Sociologists are concerned with .... accommodation, acceptance, conflict, cOOperation, and competition ....' The land economists en~ gaged in agricultural investigations have been concerned with the effects of the urban encroachment on agriculture. The urban point of view is the one which generally has been over- looked. The townships in which the rural-urban fringe is found are townships in transition. They are moving along the 1Walter C. McKain, Jr. and Robert G. Burnight, “The Sociological Significance of the Rural-Urban Fringe From the IRural Point of View,“ Rural Sociology, Vol. 18, No. 1, (March, 1953), p. 111. -8- 9513: wt: .':.e com mites. used to: frinze ‘ lent or com- a tattle ¢ "2, “4a: 9. .Q I’ 9 "‘9“ / J n: '11 r '1 1.1' II-J /'0 [,7 In (I 1:9 .' uv I’ 1' (e «D I. r ‘4. ’1 n: :1 H I” s b ”‘3 L1] -9- path which leads from rural to suburban to urban land uses. The concern of this study is the way in which this process evolves. I The definition of the rural-urban fringe which can be used for purposes of this study needs to be develOped, for the fringe is not static, but constantly shifting. The develOp- ment of the fringe and the shift from fringe to suburban may cover a relatively short period of time, and by the time the status of suburb is reached the pattern has solidified. Definitional Discussion of the Fringe Before further discussion is presented, a review of definitions previously tendered by professionals concerned with the rural-urban fringe problem is necessary. From these definitions an Operational definition of the rural-urban fringe will be developed. Samuel w. Blizzard and william in Anderson,2 in a so— ciological study, defined the fringe as follows: IThe rural- urban fringe is that area of mixed urban and rural land uses between the point where the full city services cease to be available and the point where agricultural uses predominate. It is assumed that such an area contains a pepulation grouping and has evolved a social organization which are related to 2Samuel w. Blizzard and William F. Anderson, II, Problems in Ruralfgrban Fripge Research: Qgpceptualization and Delineation, Progress Report No. 89, The Pennsylvania State College Agricultural Station, State College, Pennsyl— vania, (November, 1952), p. 11. -10- both rural and urban life, but have distinctive sociological features.“ Wehrwein3 described the rural-urban fringe as “the territory between well established urban land uses and farming.“ Obviously there are areas of agreement in these two definitions, yet they don't agree. McKain and Burnightu further compounded the confusion and also introduced a poten- tially useful division of the fringe with their delineation of the fringe as, "The limited fringe lies immediately periph- eral to the city or urbanized area; its initial growth is radially from the city along highways, but in many specific instances urban peeple and urban land uses later invade inter- stitial areas.... This area is indeed in transition so far as land use is concerned.... The expected development is a greater and greater concentration of urban peeple and the eventual disappearance of the rural element in the limited rural-urban fringe.“ This is an extremely useful concept, yet not a workable definition. Their distinction between "limited” and "extended“ rural-urban fringe is an advance in approaches to the study of the fringe. The “extended" fringe, as they see it, is the opposite in many ways of the limited fringe. The extended fringe, although it contains a mixture of urban and rural land uses and also a pepulation partially urban, is not adjacent to the urbanized area, and may or may 3eeorge s. Wehrwein, ”Land Classification for Rural Zoning,“ The Classification oftgand, Missouri Agricultural Experimental Station Bulletin No. #21, (December, l9hO), p.136. ”92. cit., p. 110. .s ‘ J :v» 39 d 9:. 61 l l.- I. M‘sw‘ 1 V. or“ a “:3 urt ‘l . 33.28 E V2131”. it 71333 t 13: -11- not be in transition toward the urban. It is very often in~ terstitial in the beginning rather than basically linear in orientation as the star shaped growth pattern associated with many urban complexes is. Other definitions are based on the census classifica— tion of data as Queen and Carpenter's5 definition of the fringe as, “that area within the standard metropolitan area which is outside the urbanized area." As defined by the United States Census of 1950 the "standard metrOpolitan area" is: "Except in New England, a standard metrOpolitan area is a county or group of contiguous counties which contains at least one city of 50,000 inhabitants or more. Counties contiguous to the one containing such a city are included in a standard metropolitan area if according to certain criteria they are essentially met— repolitan in character and socially and economically integrated with the central city. Standard metr0politan areas are not confined within state boundaries nor within census region or division boundaries. ICriteria of metrOpolitan character relate primarily to the character of the county as a place of work or as home for concentrations of nonagricultural workers and their dependents. Specifically, these criteria are: ”l. The county must (a) contain 10,000 nonagricul- tural workers, or (b) contain 10 percent of the nonagricultural workers working in the standard metrOpolitan area, or (e) have at least one-half of its population residing in minor civil divisions with a population density of 150 or more per square mile and contiguous to the central city. '2. Nonagricultural workers must constitute at least two-thirds of the total numbers of employed persons of the county. 5Stuart A. Queen and David B. Carpenter, IThe Signi~ ficance of the Rural-Urban Fringe, From the Urban Point of View," Rural Sociology, Vol. 18, No. 1, (March, 1953), p. 101. . i . the the by s "12. "The criteria of integration relate primarily to the extent of economic and social communication between the outlying counties and the central county as indicated by such items as the following: ”1. Fifteen percent or more of the workers residing in the contiguous county work in the county containing the largest city in the standard metropolitan area, or, ‘2. Twenty-five percent or more of the persons work- ing in the contiguous county reside in the county containing the largest with in the stand- ard metrOpolitan area, or, '3. An average of four or more telephone calls per subscriber per month from the contiguous county to the county containing the largest city in the standard metrOpolitan area.I The census definition of urbanized areas follows: l'IJ’rbanized areas have been defined for the first time in the 1950 Census. These areas were delineated to pro— vide a better separation of urban and rural population and housing in the vicinity of large cities. All of the dwelling units within the urbanized area are classified as part of the urban housing in 1950. “Each.urbanized area contains at least one city with 50,000 inhabitants or more in l9h0 or according to a special census between 19h0 and 1950. Each urbanized area also includes the surrounding closely settled inp corporated places and unincorporated areas that comprise the 'urban fringe.‘ The boundaries of these fringe areas were established to conform as nearly as possible to the actual boundaries of thickly settled territory, usually characterized by a closely spaced street pattern. IThe urbanized area can be characterized as the physi~ cal city as distinguished from both the legal city and the metrOpolitan community. In general, the urbanized area represents the thickly settled urban core of the standard metrOpolitan area. Urbanized areas are smaller than the standard metropolitan areas and in most cases are contained in them. Since the boundaries of standard metropolitan areas are determined by county lines and those of urbanized areas by the pattern of urban growth, there are small segments of urbanized areas, in a few instances, which lie outside the standard metropolitan area. Because of discontinuities in land settlement, there are also cases in which a single standard metrOpoli- tan area contains two urbanized areas. The lists of ur'aa diff F” V. latt dett definiti the Gen: 135521: area 13 ireas 11 ’3Pclite Willie; “‘51 met: -13- urbanized areas and of standard metropolitan areas also differ somewhat because the former had to be established for cities of 50,000 or more before 1950, whereas the latter were established for cities of 50,000 or more as determined in the 1950 Census.“ The defect in Queen and Carpenter's and in similar definitions of the rural-urban fringe is aptly pointed out by the Census definition above. That area remaining when the urbanized area is subtracted from the standard metropolitan area is not necessarily fringe and many rural-urban fringe areas lie outside the territory included in the standard met- ropolitan area. The capriciousness of the boundaries of counties and the location of a central city within the stand— ard metropolitan area as defined by Census, invalidates the = use of the standard metrOpolitan area in land use analysis. Further, the criteria for determining the economic and social integration of contiguous areas into the metropolitan complex are span to argument. Its only value would appear to be the availability of data concerning changes in pepulation and other characteristics as noted in the Census. The standard metropolitan areas within the state of Michigan are shown in figure I. Figure II shows the Detroit standard metrOpolitan area and the location of Independence Township in the complex. Two asides are aprOpos here. First, Pontiac, if it were not within the Detroit standard metrOpoli- tan area, would be large enough to be considered a central city; also waterford Township, which would be considered ‘within the urbanized area of Pontiac if Pontiac were consid- ered.a central city, is growing at a rate which.would almost -lh— insure its qualification for the same consideration. Secondly, the Detroit standard metropolitan area does not conform to the area treated as the Detroit MetrOpolitan Region by the Detroit MetrOpolitan.Area Regional Planning Commission. This agency, at the time of the study, was concerned with the three counties included in the standard metrOpolitan area and the eastern townships in Washtenaw County and all of Monroe County. The commission is supported by funds from these counties on a c00perative basis, which should indicate their awareness of their interdependence. Figures IlIand IV show the positions Lansing and Grand Rapids occupy in relation to their standard metrOpolitan areas. It would seem fairly obvious that the southeastern part of Ingham County is less a part of the Lansing complex than the eastern part of Baton County and the southern part of Clinton County. Maps showing the urbanized areas of some of the other standard metr0politan areas were not included in the 1950 Census of Housing for Michigan. But, a look at figure I shows that three other central cities are located in their standard metrOpolitan areas similarly to Lansing, Detroit and Grand Rapids. Thus of the eight standard metrOpolitan areas in Michigan, six at first glance would make one question the ad~ visability of the Census definition of a standard metrOpolitan area. McKain and Burnight's distinction between 'limited' and "extended“ fringe is one which will be employed in this study. Independence Township is now in the limited fringe O €5.95 : ”JESS 0F t ESTHER; - "Won .1—1 . w - ‘ .— FIGURE 1 s.M.A.‘s IN MICHIGAN / IE7 O PLACES OF 25,000 TO I00,000 sauces OF Ioo,ooo AND OVER -snumo METROPOLITAN AREAS ( I -osraorr S.M.A. [ AI WSK 0: SA NM??? ssssssssssss nnnnnnnnnnnnn ..... nnnnn nnnnn ..... eeeee X . PORT HURON Hfld‘fiax AMTRAMCK EARBORN WYANDOT TE L1 NCOL N PARK FISIJIE II DETRC g INC u UNI I mo INT -..- c0I IIIII FIGURE II DETROIT S.M.A. INCORPORATED AREAS - UNINCORPORATED AREAS - INDEPENDENCE TOWNSHIP ........... INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY —"'— C OUNTY LINES ——- MINOR CIVIL DIVISION LINES I OAKLAND COUNTY INDEPENDENCEI Twal ‘MACOMe CTm LAKE O PROVINCE. OF ONTARIO 5 MH£% ST CLAIR b *1 ‘SIREI .INSING :3 INCOI II UNIN -— Com ~-- ma I 01H FIGURE III ""5"" LA NSING SMA. I INOHAN COUNTYI,SHOWING URBANIZED AREA INCORPORATED PLACES UNINCORPORATED PLACES _..._. COUNTY LINES ..____ “I'm CIVIL DIVISION LINES E -- CLN --- lIIIIQ [I INCI C] UNI I :Ib I ' In I I J N zacwxniqd ~ II*IIIIIImnunw:Jmme‘IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIhnI u ."I I I ~ A '7 , -.4LI~./_ aRlKND RAPIDS SMA (KENT CO.) aUReANIZED AREA INCORPORATED PLACES UNINCORPORATED PLACES ......_. COUNTY LINES --—- ' MINOR CIVIL DIVISION LINES I I I ' NEWAYGO CbUNTY/ I MON'TCALM éOUNTY __ .. I .x I .. _ __ I z I I o ' I S .t . I g 2‘; ‘ I '. I I o I I I I. ._..._ ______ _I ________ _____I____._______ ,___... I I I 7 . I I I I I I I .' ._._I_____._.1 _____ +_________.I _____ I__..__ I I KEIIT COUNTY I I I I I I ' I I I ’ ....... I I .. _......3232323:3232%2 I I >- 33:32:22239233222322}:3:3: I' : ................................... I I I): z z 8 2:22:222222322222:22:22:22.;.;.;:;:;:;:2:::;:::;: .. l I g -‘-’ -I ~--- ,;--""”’i325???3323???3§3i3§333§?:.§i§f353232353535: — —I— — —— —— —— —I —— —— —— -— —— -o -— — g ............. I I 5 I I 2 I? I I 9 I- ____ ° : I I -+--——— ————I~————+————~——-— I I I I I I I I I . I I I KALANAZOII COUNTY I’ BARRY C(IUNT‘? I | 3 SCALE I I I E and the cc limited fr rural-urba may not be Th than: or are severaf II? under ] 'm. sincI be determh center, buI related. '6 “hispopgam tor “Vials Ilium will In: as the . in flames I 1‘ Coating. O -19- and the concern of this study will be with the problems of the limited fringe. The extended fringe may also lie along the rural-urban continuum as does the limited fringe, and may or may not be a presage of the limited fringe. The question then arises of whether there is a con~ tinuum or several continua. Paul H. Hott argues that there are several continua. This he bases on Hoyt's sector theory, for under Hoyt's theory the fringe would be heterogeneous, '.... since the character Of each sector of the fringe would be determined not entirely by its distance from the city center, but largely by the particular sector to which it is related."6 This distinction is terminological and basically unimportant, for one could question the determination Of sec- tor divisions. The fringe lies along a continuum; this con- tinuum will vary in detail from area to area within a region and as the areas are related to the central city, but it is in essence a continuum. One must remember that the continuum is continually shifting, and what is fringe today may not be fringe tomorrow. Sociologists have also been concerned with the question Of whether the fringe represents a movement of urban pepula— ‘tion outward or rural pepulation inward. Richard Dewey as- serted that '(the) ....movement of pepulation into the rural- 6Paul H. Hott, in a discussion Of Queen and Carpen- ter's and McKain and Burnight‘s essays in Rural Sociology, vol. XVIII, (March, 1953), p. 121. urban f: zeiiete Redeem“ from bot herein 1 13““ . 'ioz'sodi1 the has: 3'26 tee: 18 not I pilisl ““1021: u u “5. ant a“tan la; a ‘a r» Hu‘ V . “why I Au 8 H 1 A ’ ‘ ”I l . s “9“ 2. ~15 -20- urban fringe is .... a movement of urban people.“7 -An inter- mediate position has been assumed by several others. M. W. Rodenhaver stated '...new residents converge upon the fringe from both urban places and rural areas."8 The position taken herein is that the rural-urban fringe is future "suburbia“ which in name only is distinct from the central city. Ralph Borsodi, who wrote in 1933, made the following statement on the basis of rural to urban and urban to rural migrations in the twenties and especially those of the early thirties: “It is not an exaggeration of the situation today to say that millions of urban families are considering the possibility of flight from the city to the country...and since most of the migrants in the other direction —- from the city to country ~- actually consist of psOple who at one time had lived on farms, it is evident that what we have had for many years are intol— arable conditions...driving peeple out of the country, and then intolerable conditions...driving them back again.“9 To this writer in the thirties this may have seemed to be the case; however, unless the settlement of these people is in the extended fringe and widely scattered, they move not from 7Richard Dewey, "Peripheral Empansion in Milwaukee County,“ American Journal of Sociology, LIV, No. 2, (Septem- ber, 19%)“, "p', 119. 8M. W; Rodenhaver, IFringe Settlement as a Two-Direc- ‘tional Movement,” Rural Sociology, XII, No. 1, (March, 1947), PP 0 “9‘57 0 9121111311 Borsodi, r11 ht From the 0131, (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1933 . city to ‘8 . ‘ fl:- "'1 K"LC. Pa ‘ ‘. v", 'A \“\‘:I* 'J ‘- .. ?:_ '~ '\ .0‘ -. -21- city to country, but from city to fetal city. Moving closer to home, J. A. Beegle defined the rural-urban fringe "...as including all townships surround- ing a given center which have 50 percent or more non-village, rural non-farm residents."10 This definition at least be- gins to approach a workable one. There are some drawbacks to the definition which are important enough to invalidate it: (1) the fifty percent figure is arbitrary, and (2) rural non-farm residents may not bring with them any of the prob— lems of the limited fringe or in an extended fringe they may not indicate a trend towards the urban end of the rural- urban continuum. The arbitrariness of the 50 percent figure does not interfere too much; it is the last criticism which is important. For the purposes of the study and for the applica- bility of its conclusions and suggestions, the following loose definition is tendered: The limited rural-urban fringe is characterized by these characteristics: 1. A variety of interposed mixtures of land uses, with a strong competition between urban and rural ones for the available land. 2. A large portion of the population resides in areas which are suburban in character, i.e. residential lots of five acres or under in "farm subdivisions" or 10J. A. Beagle, ”Characteristics of Michigan's Fringe Popgéation,“ Rural Sociology, XII, No. 3, (September, 19147). p- 5. -22- in definitely urban subdivisions with a closely spaced street pattern with generally two or more houses per acre. 3. There exists a conflict of interest between rural and 'urban' residents with regard to services which the political division in which they live should provide. Generally this will be manifested in the need to raise property taxes to provide school facilities for an in- creasing school pepulation. The rural-urban fringe should be studied on the indi- vidual township level, for this is the smallest political di- vision with which we can.work. Granted that a fringe township will not be homogeneous; however, it is a convenient framework within which to work, and it is the unit directly concerned with the problems which the rural-urban fringe advances. The Spread of the triage Problem Our population, our cities, our railroads, and our industry have all grown together. Unlike EurOpean cities, our cities have developed and grown in conjunction with rail- roads and industry. As a result, railroads penetrate our cities to their cores, and industrial corridors alligned with railroad rights of way are scattered throughout the urban com— ;plex. Urban pepulation simultaneously grew in.three ways. Increased immigration in the late 1800's and early 1900's brought eastern and southern EurOpeans to the United States, most of whom located in the industrial centers in the Eastern -23. and north Central states. Infant mortality rates drOpped and life expectancies were increased, giving rise to a large nat- ural increase in population. Finally, agricultural techniques advanced and surplus labor in agriculture began to increase the previous rural—urban migration of the middle 1800's. Land uses within cities began to complete rigorously for the urban land available. With the horizontal expansion of cities limited greatly by the transportation of the day, intensifi- cation of urban land use was inevitable. This period of rapid urban growth gave to us as a dubious heritage the dumbell and railroad tenements, first deve10ped in the teeming New York metrOpolitan area. The pressures of urban life increased as the urban population grew and urban complex grew more slowly. Slums deve10ped, the fine old residential areas adjacent to the central business districts deteriorated and finally were ob- literated by the need to intensify the use of the land. Even today one can see how this happened. One only needs to see the streets perpendicular to Woodward Avenue in Detroit near ‘Wayne University. The pattern of residential deve10pment in the 1800's followed, in spirit, very closely the urban resi- ¢1ential develOpment in colonial times. Every other street 1flas a service street; only the kitchen gardens and stables Opened on to them. Residences all faced on another street. This is obvious in the pattern now to be observed. As an ex- ample, Ferry, one of these streets on which residences stood, .is a.etreet of apartments, commercial establishments, and —2u— schools, all of which are located in large old residences. The streets to the south and north.also have apartments, etc., all of which are in buildings erected expressly for these purposes. The previous lots were simply cut in half and the double frontage eliminated. The peeple who lived in these areas could afford to move out and establish new residential cases, such as Arden Park in Detroit, for they were not as strictly controlled by time. The greater portion of the urban population, however, could not move and escape the crowding and urban blight which was increasingly distressing. That there was a desire to escape the conditions of the city cannot be denied, but the transportation of the day made it impossible for any but a few to realize this goal. These factors, inten- sification of land use, tremendous population growth, and the deve10pment of an urban complex around the railroads and in- dustrial corridors, were the causes of the future rural-urban fringe. Only one factor was needed to bring this expansion into the hinterland into being. This catalyst was provided by the rapid develOpment of the internal combustion engine and the commercial produc- tion of the automobile. The automobile made possible early in the 1900's the move of affluent individuals to areas at that time removed from the central city. Commuter trains also made possible this move, and in cities where this service was ‘widespread and readily available, horizontal expansion.of the central city was rapid and took place comparatively early in the century. In a city such as Detroit, this effect can be -25. substantiated by the early deve10pment of Royal Oak, Pleasant Ridge, and the other INorth Woodward" communities served by the Grand Trunk and Western Railroad. As a testimonial to the attitude towards the city prevailing at the time, an early community in the Royal Oak areas was called Suburban Best. The development of the all-weather road in response to the increased use of automobiles made the catalyst complete, and the 1920's saw the beginnings of the new"American Dilemma“ and hepe, the trek to suburbia. If we, for the moment, attempt to use the 1950 Census data for standard metrOpolitan areas, and the reworking done 11 to make previous metropolitan district information by Bogue coincide with the new S.M.A., we can get an index of the growth of Standard Metropolitan areas throughout the country. Bogus differentiated between Central cities and rings, and then be— tween rural and urban areas within metropolitan rings. Bogue continues further: "within the rings of S.M.A.'s there has been another reversal of the pattern of growth, sim- ilar to that which occurred between central cities and rings. Before 1930, urban places in the rings were growing much more rapidly than the rural areas...During the l930—HO decade, howh ever, this situation was completely reversed, and this rever— sal has continued through the l9hO—50 decade. During the last 20 years, the growth of incorporated places into the urban 11Donald J. Bogus, Po ulation Growth in Standard Met- (De- ro olitan Areas 1900—1950, H.H.F.A., Washington, D. 0.. eember, 1953). -25- class has slackened noticeably, while the suburbanization of unincorporated territory adjacent to metr0politan centers has been accelerated tremendously.“ The great shift in pepulation then has been to the less densely settled and less populous fringe areas of the metropolitan ring. When we compare growth in central cities and rings, we observe the following: “Since 1900 a remarkable reverse in the pattern of growth within S.M;AJs has taken place. In 1900-10, the central cities had higher growth rates than the metropolitan rings, but in l9h0—l950 the rings were growing at a much more rapid rate than central cities. This change appears to have taken place about 1920.“ This pattern of growth is now firmly established, and Bogus feels that it would appear to be more than Just the central city's over- flowing its boundaries, "for annexation to the central city is now infrequent."12 Bogus, as mentioned, feels this is not an overflowing of the central cities' bounds; however, it is more than likely that this is exactly what it is. True, there has been little annexation politically, but the economic and social ties to the central city are such that this fundamental identity cane not be denied. The importance of the rural-urban fringe depends upon the importance of the growth of urban metrOpolitan areas. The growth of metropolitan areas has been almost phenomenal. In 121b1d., p. 18. in the 111:3 , BM «3. r. L.” -27- 1900, 32 percent of the total pepulation of the United States (some 2h.2 million persons) lived in the 52 areas which would have qualified for consideration as S.M.A.'s in 1950. In 1950, 86 million (57 percent of the national population) lived in the 162 S.M.A.'s. To quote Bogus13 "During this half-cen- tury, the population of the nation nearly doubled in size, but the S.M.A. pepulation became 3% times its 1900 size.“ Of course much of this increase had been by accretion of urban areas into S.M.A. classification size which distorts the pic- ture slightly; however, the growth of urban areas is clearly indicated. In Michigan there are eight S.M.A.'s: Detroit, Grand Rapids, Lansing, Bay City, Saginaw, Flint, Jackson, and Kalamazoo. These eight areas had a total pepulation of h,225,001 or 68.8 percent of the pepulation of the State of Michigan. If we add such urban centers as Battle Creek, Muskegon—Muskegon Heights, Port Huron, Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti, 'we find that h,b52,037 peeple are involved or 72.6 percent of the state's population. If we attempt to trace the urbaniza- tion of the state's population, two obvious alternatives are available. First we can follow the change in the percentage of the pepulation residing in urban places, and secondly trace the change in the farm population of the state. Table I shows 'the change in the percentages of the population residing in urban places. Table II shows the individual changes in S.M.A.'s axni urban places from 1900bl950. An interesting phenomenon is 13Ib1d., p. VII. -28... . .. .co mm mm .. . .m.m .QWmauoomA mmma«_cmvdao capo: damdcdpm :a_npzoaw soapdafi om osmom .b cannon “ochmmm soapsasaom mam.mma.m moa.hmm.m mmm.mme.a Nae.mhh.m maa.oaw.m mma.oma.m sameness soupsasaom m.ha H.Ha m.ma w.mm 4.0m «.me sewage“: do a moosam manna use m..apec amm.mmh.a amm.mma.m oom.aom.m maa.mmm.m mmm.aae.a mmm.mao.H .pez..e..«.z.m soapsasmom m.ma H.ah m.ma o.mm H.me 0.0: newhhehz do a chopcoo cmpdaomoapoz amo.mma.a mma.mmm.m mma.mam.m hem.ama.m mam.mmm.a mme.awm use e..<.z.m cedpeadaOm m.mh n.3e h.mh m.em a.Hh H.hm sewage”: he a . . neon<.cmpfiaoa Hoo.mmm.: mmm.omm.m mam.mfla.m www.moo.m :ma.mma.a maw.aaw scape: easeeepm omma oema omoa ommH oama oooa .ooma mosz mmamm.m=mzmo moa mm4.mmmpoHa mma .zmma 2H czHonmm 20Haegamom m.maoMeA :eHeHaNeHhaN cam aoHHHz tho omnobsaa oHac2.Npm.pHm ommozo moHHz pceNoNHm.pz ceases osmHon oquaosNz appendacz coozaoaH useHHom ensacomm oeHHHcoo mdomad coHpH< scuac< moosam manna -31- shown by the difference between the 1930 percentage and the 1940 percentage and by the difference between the 1930 per- centage and the 1950 percentage. The 1940 percentage we would expect to be lower than the 1930 percentage as a result of the return to the country during the depression. The 1950 per- centage we would expect to be greater than the 1930 percentage; however, it is not. One possible explanation is that the post war recovery of the residential construction industry was not effected until well into 1948, and that due to this many families were required to find housing in areas contiguous to S.M.A.'s yet not within them. The decline of the farm pepula- tion (Table III), perhaps, provides us with a better insight into the degree or urbanization which the state has undergone. The depression return to the farm appears in the 1940 figure and the influx of rural non-farm residents is indicated by the sharp decrease in the farm pepulation from 1940 to 1950. The Detroit S.M.A., in which Independence Township is located, had, in 1950, a population of 3,016,197 or 49.2 per- cent of the state's population. It is also the most extensive covering three counties, wayne, Oakland, and Macomb. It has grown rapidly in the past; between 1940 and 1950 only three other S.M.A.'s in the country with over 1,000,000 population grew faster - Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and San Francisco. The State of Michigan increased in pepulation by some 880,166 people; the Detroit S.M.A. increased by 638,868. Comparison of population growth in the Detroit S.M.A. and that of other S.M§A.'s and urban places in the state is shown in Table II. -32- TABLE III MICHIGAN FARM POPULATION 1920 1930 1940 1950 auu,u99 775,436 860,202 694,742 TABLE IV GROWTH OF THE CENTRAL CITY, URBAN RING-AND RURAL RING, DETROIT, MICHIGAN 1900-1950, IN ACTUAL NUMBERS 1950 1940 1930 1920 1910 1900 Central City 1,849,568 1,623,452 1,568,662 993,678 465,766 285,704 Urban Ring 731,279 497,661 442,437 188,983 42,368 26,101 Rural Ring 435,350 256,216 166,244 123,137 105,639 115,024 PERCENTAGE GROWTH OF THE CENTRAL CITY, URBAN RING, DETROIT, MICHIGAN 1900-1950 19ho- 1930— 1920- 1910— 1900- 1950 1940 1930 1920 1910 Central City 13.9 3.5 57.9 113.3 63.0 Urban Ring 46.9 12.5 134.1 346.0 62.3 Rural Ring 69.9 54.1 35.0 16.6 -8.2 -33- It is apparent that in an area as extensive as the Detroit S.M.A. or more broadly the Detroit MetrOpolitan Region as defined by the Detroit MetrOpolitan Area Regional Planning Commission the rural-urban fringe exists in force. This sup- position is corroborated by the DMARP's studies and Bogue's figures showing growth in the rural rings or the central city of Detroit (which is almost completely built up). Bogue's statistical“ (Table Iv and Figure v) show that between 1940 and 1950 the urban ring gained in absolute amount more than the central city and the rural ring about one-fifth less. Be— tween 1930 and 1940 during the depression exodus the rural ring led the race with the central city second and the urban ring last. In percentages, which are at best a little mis- leading, the trend is clearly indicated. (See Figure VI) The Detroit MetrOpolitan Area Regional Planning Com- mission, working with census data, has determined the center of pepulation for the Detroit S.M.A. Their calculations show that I'In 1930, the center of pepulation of the Detroit S.M.A. was located in Detroit at Hamilton and Elmhurst Avenues. (See Map.) By 1940, the center had moved northwest to Thompson and Glendale Avenues. This move was about as far west as it was north. By 1950, the center of pepulation for the metropolitan area had shifted to LaSalle and Oakman Boulevards. The move from 1940 to 1950 was about twice as much both north and west as during the previous decade. In other words, the trend 7—7 luIbldg, p. 420 ‘3‘. ‘~- I OIT SMA. I900' I950 RURAL RING FIGURE I “J POPULATION GROWTH OF THE 0 CENTRAL CITY,URBAN RING,AND POPULATION -- 2.000.000 .. I {900,000 I I - l,- 000 .000 -..50 0, 000 400,000 I .... 200,000 ’/—/ 9 YEAR 1 1 L l 1 4 1980 IS'IO 19‘20 who she €50 r\\ rlBUKt ALI. PERCENTAGE GROWTH CENTRAL CITY,URBAN RING, AND RURAL RING DETROIT S.M.A. BY TEN YEAR PERIODS I900-I950 PERCENT OF PREVIOUS POPULATION 400+ 300—4— / 200~~ IOO—r RURAL “me R “NC“ 089“ 0"" A -_.. ‘f/ I IL ,L ' 1i Isoo- I9I0- I920- I930- I940- ISI 0 I920 I930 l940 I950 -35- toward the north and west was greatly intensified during the 1940-1950 period."15 The conclusions which they drew from this were: (1) the City of Detroit, as other cities throughout the country, has been growing at a much slower rate than its surrounding environs, and (2) further growth in this northwest direction should be anticipated as expansion to the east and south is, of course, limited by Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River. In a talk before the Sixth.Annual Planning and Zoning Conference at the Fort Shelby Hotel in Detroit on February 23, 1956, Paul M. Reid, then Planning Analyst with the D.M.A.R.P.C., talked on Detroit Regional development, includ- ing Economic growth, home building, and pepulation growth. As a part of his presentation, he stressed that the townships in the region were fast taking the lead in pepulation growth. As examples he cited that I'seven cities in the central com- plex, Detroit, Hamtramck, Highland Park, Ferndale, Dearborn, Ecorse, and River Rouge, in 1950 built 15,756 new homes or 36 percent of the region's total of 43,975,“ but, “in 1955 built only 2,463 or only 6 percent of the region's total of 39,953.“ As he mentioned further growth in these areas is slowing be- cause there simply aren't available building sites. He then stated that in 1950 the 14 tOp townships in the region ac- counted for only 16.9 percent of the area's new residential 15Urban Environment Studyfil,_ghe Centersgg;_gppulgr tion.of the Detroit S.M.A. and the City of Detroit 1 0 1 40, 1250, D.M.A.R.P.C., July 1953. -37- construction, but, by 1955 the townships received 34.6 per- cent of the region's total. He then continued that, “Today, townships like Warren (now incorporated), Clinton, Southr field, Waterford, Dearborn, Redford, Taylor, and Ecorse are fast becoming urbanized.” CHAPTER III INDEPENDENCE TOWNSHIP Geographical Location Independence Township is located in the north central part of Oakland County. (See map for location in State and in Detroit area.) It is about one mile northwest of the city of Pontiac. U.S. 10, which provides the major highway OOH! nection with Pontiac and Detroit to the south and with Flint, Saginaw and Bay City to the north, cuts across the southwest— ern portion of the township. Clarkston, the village center of the township, is located in the western part of the town- ship one mile north of U.S. 10 on M 15 which originates at U.S. 10 and runs north to Bay City. The Grand Trunk and Western Railroad also crosses the township southwest of U.S. 10. Settlement Oakland County was one of the earliest settled Of the inland counties in Michigan. Early settlers arrived in 1815, most of them from New England, New York, New Jersey and Penn- sylvania. The Journey to Michigan in those days was a long tedious one. A common way (in fact one of the few ways) to get there was to take a stage from New IOrk or Philadelphia -38- ”I. .1: -39- to Buffalo, a schooner from Buffalo to Detroit, and then travel by oxcart or horseback to the interior. The total elapsed time was a good thirty days. Settlement was slow. Much Of Oakland County is rolling and broken up except for some level areas at the Sashabaw plains, Drayton plains, and around Orion and Oxford. The surface was mainly formed dur- ing a drift period and there is much alluvial deposit. Oakland County was formed as a governmental unit January 12, 1819, and on June 28, 1820 the county was split into two townships, Oakland and Bloomfield. In 1827 the county was again subdivided into five townships, Pontiac, Oakland, Farmington, Bloomfield, and Troy. Lest the impres- sion be given that the pepulation was increasing rapidly, it should be noted that in 1830 the pepulation of this 900 square mile area was less than 5,000. The slow development of this portion of Michigan can be laid in part to the discouraging picture painted by the surveyors who studied the area in 1812 for the purpose of government gifts to the soldiers of the War of 1812. Their _description starts, IThe country on the Indian boundary line, from the mouth of the Great Auglaize Raver, and running thence for about fifty miles, is (with some exception) 10w, wet land ...,' and.there follows a description which.weuld hardly en- courage settlement. The cities of Pontiac, Birmingham and Royal Oak were established or founded in the fall of 1818, which coincided With the early conversion of the Indian trail from Detroit to ~40- Saginaw into a military road. Progress was slow and sixteen years later, in 1834, the road.was only six miles beyond Flint. Settlements moved further inland as the road advanced. Waterford Township was settled in the Spring of 1819. Finally the first purchase of land in Independence Township was made in October of 1823 by Alpheus Williams. Most of Independence Township, at that time, was covered by large stands of oak except for Sections 3, 25, and 29 which had fine stands of pine. The Sashabaw Plain (section 25) was settled by John'W. Beardslee in 1826. The next few years saw more settlers ar- riving and in 1832 the first wheat crOp was harvested by John Beardslee on the Sashabaw Plain. That same year saw a number of settlers arrive, all but one of whom settled in the southern part of the township. The year 1833 saw the settle- ment increase substantially and saw the founding of what is new Clarkston by Butler Holcomb who built a saw mill there. The saw mill was bought by Jeremiah and N. W. Clark in 1838. They built a dam and a grist mill in 1839 and the village was named for them. Agricultural development continued and by the middle 1870's there were many orchards, and the upland wheat land was considered among the finest developed at this time. The expansion into the western wheat lands reduced the acreages of wheat grown in the township, and as Detroit grew dairying became the major enterprise. Potatoes were also grown as a cash crOp and the fertility of the light sandy -41~ soils of the township was reduced considerably. Land Forms of Independence Township The area in which Independence Township is located consists mainly of outwash plain and alluvial deposits. L0- cal relief varies considerably. In some areas there are changes of 100 to 150 feet in a short distance while in others there may be little relief at all (see Figure VII show- ing tepo). Drainage is interrupted to some extent and there are many bogs and potholes. There are many lakes most of which are part of a river system (see FigureVTIIshowing drainage areas and stream systems). There are numerous occurrences of organic soils, muck and peat, varying in depth and acidity from spot to spot. Much of the organic soil is underlain by marl, and most large bodies of it are in areas difficult to drain. The lakes in the area are not solely drainage fed; many of them are spring fed, and the larger more accessible ones have been deve10ped in varying degrees for recreation. Original cover varied from pines on some well-drained sandy soils to an oak association on the major parts of the township to a cedar tamarack association on organic soils. veatch in his book Spils of Michigan describes the land types found in the state. Of these four are found in Independence Township (see Figure IX showing land types). veateh's descriptions of these land types is as use- ful as any that could be given and almost as fine a breakdown 88 exists. The first type that he mentions is the 'Dry Sandy - e I, r. ' — ~J‘>“' ‘(‘;4 I." HOUREnmm INDEPENDENCE TOWNSHIP TOPOQRAPHY 0F CONTOUR ""‘IjII‘rERVAL 50 FEET {x .A I " c I I ,, - » \ \ ~ ’~. I,\ ‘ \ ~ I \ 5‘ ' 7 -‘ I \ \ _. \ \,r’ 7 I I i ‘ ; . "x I : /\ \~ '7 \ . , ‘ \ . _ \, \,be { _\ \fl )\ /’\\ A? 1” I 7 7‘ I’\. " I) ‘v’ t,.’ I’ '._I :7 A ‘ <‘ >1 . \ 1 I II ‘ I\ 7 ' \ , ,f' I”) \ - {7. -- \ - \ . '\\ ‘I x .' ‘ " ,.v' \\ w ‘\ I, «j 7 I I ‘ f“ I u . \ H K‘ a-' ‘\ ('7 It I”:- ‘K -~ ' ) 3(1 ‘ 7 ‘ 7 ‘. 3, "X r , f‘. V :3 \x-wu ‘51 '~ /“~- ‘ \- k . \ . V‘\‘l . ‘ I A \ '7 - I x,‘ ‘ \ 7‘ \ ' 1. "1 \ O I 1. r I 1"” -‘,K ‘ . I '- \ I \ ”‘- II,. 7 " ‘ Ir ,2 . ‘ I. ."7 ‘. ,3. ‘_ 7 ’I 1. 1‘ p- l A I ~ J O ’ \ / 7 \ I I‘- . ‘7‘ t I; \ .. 1' \. I . r , (A - HJ ( __./ ‘ / ,' 7‘ ‘3, ,AHQJ ,’ r4 I t \ a. k '3 ‘I‘ 7 ‘V-.~¢77‘i\‘ II, 7 v - I ,' , - r " " Fl ‘l ‘ .‘l 5 \‘I If? » -" ,, II‘S' , \‘ .. w ‘ I I .2 ‘- I I ‘ . F" , I 4"" I ‘ ' r A I ' f- ‘5‘ _,. A t I r I 'l ’ C" " "L — ”‘r , - p--- . .A\ """-: ‘ \ «.7 . . —_ _g - A g ‘ l \ 7‘. n} 3 ”t m Pf. locohmmi , "\ (A v 8,». 9’4“» LAI/LL lac/VD 1.} Waco/Leat- a" FIGURESZIII . INDEPENDENCE TWP DRAINAGE AREAS,DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, MARSH,AND LAKES INTERMITTENT STREAMS STREAMS DRAINAGE AREAS I 5 TWP. BOUNDARY 3000 40,00 SWAMPY LAND 1 . 5000 FT. I a DUCKCREEK - KEARSLEY. YER afiSTEM ~ _, DRAI NAG E. AREA .. I (SAGINAW RI 1 : ' . I ' -'.’ 1". . _ ,l ' I . ., g ,.,- ' t. .~ ’4' 0’ \fi ‘vl‘ ' 7‘ .I- 10" . I. ‘ If: ‘ "'7 3s} . ' . e h, I», ',_. " a In ‘fi ' .0 ,\_'. 131 .s'" H 3.0 _. .I . e M. -: . VIA I I... .fi' . I - ' . :1: .r: a," 1" -- w ,t 'v ' "c" .2: .6 l- . I ‘A: . - _, . . ‘5 \."\.l t_.'. *5. '1/ O .1 4'. ’: 'r‘f' {If 1*, i. . 77" I 0"?“ .31»! “he. 3: 9.; :3,- (27,: if" P . .I; .43. 1. _, .4 a. "- ' r. . ".7 DRAINAGE RAREA RAYZER SYSTEM) (CLINTON SASHABAW ’R (CLINTON RI [1 TOWNSON LAKE DRAINACE AREA o . no; _. N RIVER SYSTEM) ., . '- . , 0.1. g“.¢. .21. PAINT CREEK DRAIN .9 NAGE AREA EEK DRAINAGE“ AREA ER SYSTEM) . v . 0 fl v - 1 ~ -.I ”)1 .. I. _ .. _'.~’\.- a..- fi-- h‘ .. . 1. -' ' '0‘ .,’3 2a.. " ‘Q- FIGURESZHI . INDEPENDENCE TWP DRAINAGE AREAS,DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, MARSH,AND LAKES INTERMITTENT STREAMS STREAMS DRAINAGE AREAS I 5 TWP. BOUNDARY 3000 4090 SWAMRY LAND I . 5000 FT. I a DUCKCREEK - KEARSLEY. MER SRSTEM ~ _, DRAI NAG Es AREA .. I (SAGINAW RI 1 : ' . I ' -'.’ 1‘. . _ ,l ' I . .’ g ,E ' t. .~ ’4' 0’ \fi ‘vl‘ ' 7‘ .I- 10" . I. ‘ If: ‘ "1. Rs} . ' . o h, I», '._I " a In ‘fi ' -. ,\_'. 131 .o'" E 3.0 _. .I . . M. -: . VIA I I... .fi' . I - ' . :1: .r: a," 1" -- w ,I. 'v ' "c" .2: h l- . I ‘A: . - _, . \ ‘5 \."\.l t_.'. *5. '1/ O .1 4'. ’: p:- "t:' 1*, i. . “L I 0"?“ .31»! '35. 3: 9.; :3,- (27,: if" P . in .43. 1. _. .4 s. "- ' r. . ".7 DRAINAGE RAREA RIMER SYSTEM) (CLINTON SASHABAW ’R (CLINTON RI [1 TOWNSON LAKE DRAINAGE AREA o . no; _. N RIVER SYSTEM) ., . '- . , 0.1. “‘.¢. -‘.§Q PAINT CREEK DRAIN .9 NAGE AREA EEK DRAINAGE“ AREA ER SYSTEM) . v . 0 fl v - 1 ~ -.I ”)1 .. I. _ .. _'.~’\.- 4..- fi-- h‘ .. . 1. -' ' '0‘ .X? :a. " ‘Q- ‘.l f - ‘T "J'- “ v I I xirure l( ‘ ,,.~- - s , . ., . t- ‘ ' Leno .y)es of .a‘egenoence {owns 13 I I————o—~-o----~——-I -- - -~ - -—JI—--—- ~~~~~~~ —- -—-----\-~~—>-+- L- ”wj‘t, Land Type Characteristics ID. of Acres II. Gently rolling to hilly, mainly clay loans, peat and 1,703 muck widely distributed both in large and small bodies. ixty per cent in farms, 23 per cent in pasture swans and woodland Icounty wide . III. flainly hilly sandy uolands with sharo rid;es, Knobs 7,523 Dasins, smells, and sans; lakes and swaaus cannon. ' Bullies easily, very little now in production, was bes‘ wheat land. Fifty p r cent now in permanent pasture; Fifty mar Cent in hunting, homes, reforestation or other non-agricultural use Icounty wide). I7. Level and pitted sandy loam plains, uniC‘lain by 12,010 Jrcvally d9maslts, acsoclated bodies of neat and nucz. Forty pvr cent in agriculture; other uses are suodivisions n rnanent pasture and gravel UitS (County wide). ‘JI. wet land, flgt plains and W de valleys. ainly sandy leans 340 i and muck underlain ~1th clay, sand or Jravel. ;ixty o‘r cent in far 5, 25 per cent 2n we: DECLure, 1) )Ir cent in so divisions, golf c arses, and soecial true: 5 i - ' , . 1‘ .V _' . ‘ V ’ L :. . CF’jtS :Lf ‘39..) 11 (A! ’1 L(:{3J {I L. -"Ail1. .’ le‘j‘: I -u5. Plains Type," of which he says comprise a large portion of the State. “The land varies from flat and featureless to plains which are deeply pitted and interspersed with lakes, bogs, and swamps. Trough like basins and valleys enclosed by ' short steep slopes are also an occasional feature...The soils are prevailingly sands and sandy loams; relatively dry, and low to medium in fertility and productivity. The topography is favorable for agricultural use, and the soil is easily tilled, but much of it has a low value for agriculture because the moisture is insufficient for the production of profitable yield.I Veatch recognizes five sub-types of this general type and places Oakland County in the following sub-type, '....both uniformly flat and broken pitted plains which are underlaid by the more gravelly deposits and are characterised by a thin sub- surface layer of reddish gravelly or sandy clay between the surface soil and the dry gravelly substitution. Dry, pit depressions, numerous lakes, both small and large, and small to large bodies of peat and muck land are asso- ciated. The principal soil types are Fox loam and Fox sandy loam. This digision includes some of the best ag- ricultural land...“* Division number one has...“a higher proportion of slopes in relation to flat upland, more wet lowland, in— cluding peat and muck, and on the whole a greater range and complexity in soil components. The configuration features are mostly rounded, constructional in origin, and without any very definite uniformity in kind or ar- rangement. The depressional features are variously dry erosion hollows, cols, cupules, bowls, broad, shallow, dish depressions, punts, Open drainage swales, alluvial valleys, occasional lakes, peat bogs, and numerous tiny, shallow ponds. The upland features are hillocks, ridges, rolls, gentle swells, hends, spurs, breasts, all gener- ally rounded or curved in conformation and composed of smooth short slopes. The few slopes that are precipitous or steep are generally short. Some of the area included consists of separate broad swells of upland spaced either by wide depressions or by narrow valley flats occupied by streams. These upland segments are not flat—topped, but have inequalities produced by micro hollows and drainage swalcs...The local relief is generally less ghan “0-50 feet and in a few places as much as 100 feet.'1 ‘ M 16J. o. Veatch, Soils of Michigan (East Lansing, ichigan State College Press, 1953), pp. 14.15. 17Ib1d., p. 61. -46- #12 Bellefontaine-Hillsdale—Coloma Association "This land type comprises the more broken or hilly highland in the southern part of the state, in which the soils are diverse in texture and other physical and Chemical properties, but are dominantly sandy loams. The broken, or hilly, aspect of the landscape is caused by basin depressions and other inequalities which are constructional features of glacial deposition, rather than because of dissection by streams. The configuration features are generally curved in form; s10pes are rounded and convex and variable in gradients rather than angular and evenly planated from crest to base. Local differ- ences in elevation may not be more than #0 or 50 feet, but in more hilly areas they may be 100 to 200. Lakes, lake basin and valley swamps are characteris- tic; there are very few streams, although short drainage hollows confluent to basins and valleys are numerous. There are a few small bodies of flat land on the crests of plateaus and ridges, but generally the acreage of strongly sloping land exceeds that of the combined flat land of the summits and basin floors. The principal soil types are Bellefontaine, Hillsdale, and Coloma...0rganic soils comprising as much as 20 per— cent of some of the areas shown on the map, have a wide range in thickness and also in kinds - from black highly developed limy muck to strongly acid, rawpeat."18 #lh Fox-Oshtemo—Plainfield Association "This division comprises the land on which the soils are uniformly the Fox types. The land surface, in part, is flat and dry, or merely diversified by very shallow sags; in other places the surface is indented by numer— ous small potholes, and broken by larger basin depres- sions and valleys containing lakes, swamp and marsh. Differences in elevation between the upland plain levels and the bottoms of potholes, lake and swamp levels, amount to 10 to 40 or 50 feet. Steep slopes are very short, and conform to the circular and elliptical shapes of the de- pressional relief. The soils are mainly sandy loams, but also, in part loams of the Fox and closely related soil types...Muck soils may make up as much as 10 percent of some of the areas...8urface boulders are uncommon, but gravelly and cobbly sails are local in occurrence throughout the areas."1 A further breakdown has been done into seven land types 181b1.d.. . p. 71. 19Ibid., p. 76. -47- and this isoshown on maps with a brief description of char- acteristics. History of Agriculture in Independence Township The study of changes in agriculture before an urban influx ties in usually with the land's capacity. However, little is available in print regarding changes in agricul- ture in Independence Township except census data. There are some records which tell us that before 1870 Oakland County was one of the greatest wheat producing counties in the United States. The Sashabaw Plains area in the southeast— ern portion of the township was at that time the wheat land of the township. We also can recover accounts of orchards on the gently sloping sandy soils, some of which were fairly extensive. The light soils on slopes and the extensive deposits of organic soils in marshes and swamps are factors which limit farming and urban development in some parts of the t3C3Wnship. CHAPTER IV URBAN GROWTH IN INDEPENDENCE TOWNSHIP PRIOR TO 1946 It is difficult to trace with any precision the ur- ban growth prior to 19h6 in Independence Township. Records of building permits are available only from 19h6 to date, and even then the years of l946,'b7 and’48 are Open to some question about their completeness. We can arrive at an idea of how densely developed the township was at the end of the last war by taking the total development as mapped in the summer of 1956 by field checking and subtracting all residential construction recorded from 1946 to 1956 (Figures X abcde showing development by periods). We are in a more fortunate situation regarding sub— division activity. The township had on record in its office a capy of every plat recorded in the township. There is a substantial record of platting activity in the township before l9h6. There was little subdividing Up to 1920. Between 1920 and 1930, however, there were 27 jplats recorded containing #561 building lots. These varied in size from 12 lots to over 1100. Most of these subdivi- Sions were adjacent to easily reached bodies of water. Some ‘were simple divisions of parcels into a few large lots; 'Others were grandiose with intricate road systems and plans -ua- lOc CONSTRUCTION AND PLATTING ACTIVITY PRIOR TO I946 FIGURE each dot .7 . a . IIIIIIIIIIIII I .IIII.I I.m—'~ -—.)- um I: -- .rA—U F‘Eltii‘ ii“ I n- n g z i... I‘”M-». ’F—w ' u. unla-nllv I. IIIITIIIIIIIIII'II!!! D M I residence 1.“ .. . H Y‘O.’ INTI-BEN I I I VI. r))I[|-L pl' -l .' ....IIII . III..I I II. IIIIIII. I IIIII I III I n. n n l a S m D a H .N a n w E. nu \I \‘ilxln RAN .I‘IDI'A‘NTI'OII‘IV'PI! .‘Il‘l‘Illfi I E 9 fl 1 I n 7‘ m .l «I: .L 7 a ‘ v m I L . lit-DIP); tiEICQLLIuT-‘rr cyl- 4 ~ . Una-r.“ an n n. n» I . i w U a C a B. ' l. i. H...) E D . C . . . V. u b I F ILIIIID u . .1... «cm use: 0|. Q01~ a 3%.. III 0' I ' BEING!!! jhu ~ - 'II ' ‘ . D. ' I 0).)... U n E D 1 III I'll; III! (III 0 ...\ I \ _ _ . "we Q . COI'I-I ‘ E _ .. R u 9 w 9 ' ' '.- fl . > "' A" .. 1 .. _. A J \E (I! Hi A. . .. . A .. . E / ... A . .. . A \l- -...‘A._- .- IIT) I ...II i ..III; ..IleLi. III! 4 .. - I. IIIIIIII- IIAII.I E ..IIIIJE fiIIIII ..." .....z .I «A A. I. .IIIIIIII. .9 III-.- ‘I... Still...) ....I ... ... I I . .I; . I I. III: I. E E . {III-Iu III-HE IVA/... 7% . DEM). ....E. «MIL... . A v . WAVI.-I-I! I‘M-”9.). iii“ ~.\.I[. ,.....E Q A :11)--. ... ...!I: . p A A \ ...I. . .0 ..EIM. a... -. w '. an-.~—-W.-~v—V .- .. E».- .- .LEEEEE... ...,E. ...—......” ~ W x /’ MT“-# I I l I I I I / %/ I E E . _ . . .I.L I E _ . VIII... , . . I. ...-III... A ,. r. E E FI) - . . I Ea . I...-.E . E E u ”a MA E\ // SAX-INA? ... A E. A, E .I..u...III..-.U-)A-ME.A 1,, .EE E ILA-ILL i .. A E /U.. ,, . Ewan-TIA. .-.-4.... .E E A AIIIIIII , . E ”F III“ A. ... . E .. _. ..fll) ., . A . V A E v—A... ...— - __ A..- ‘-~-. / E / IIIII [/3- I I I , I I I J“ "'-~“-‘~dr'L—_ __ ”AAA AAA... F’s-— L/r': I f\ I 3 EIEMH~ 1 #7 I I I I I L_._.—..___~ A...“ .. A E .. E _ . E E III}. .\ . - A A A \; I .z I E I |I|I\IIIIIII\. "II\IIII r: (.ll‘l} _ 7!.-. I... - . a. .r H./..../.. E - A - I I II A, III. /I-. . EN. ...; E a.-- .E E , r M r . x . .\ U/I -. A A E.\. E A A . A E A \.. .....J .I I. H E . \. . \ EE 7).. \. ...... EE _ ..E i A . A E. A WEAR. _ :0 W A. n A \N o A H J fl II ..II- .-I .. III-33..-;- (2.1.1.11III!II-II,I..I!I.I...§!-u-r In.“ II)I.II.. IIIIJE “IIIII-II .. .II-II’. # A E .2... . . a . . E. E . EE ...... A E - A A AA A E A . I ATII) ....III-I-I-ut A , / ...... I A . .. _. // .. A A .. l I I II I A V\\-\IJ 1/ \Lrt II . E .. E E f... E .E .E . . z“) I -r—.—— ‘> I I I .l I g. u :1“ ¢“ - I I. I \X‘ I I. .--EE.! ' I ,. .T_E. .. I I LA. /'/ .1 \ - I IIIIIIlt II I’lll. I . . .II‘III .- . . - III . . . 4.... . 71 . . . o; Ix. I . I . - u .l . . . ..I. . Y... ... .I I... . I.. I -II . I -. I . . .II .. .. . . T's!- .-I...-.I II III IIIIV..II-IIQ.I.«(IIQI. J? IIIIII- L ..-. I. .. : . . k.........._ A. A. A I.- .I I. ....IIIIIIIkfi : . I... . ......) .- ..I. .-.:f. ...I. 1; Ira-I IIIIIII-IIII_I..... i 1155...! TIAIIII‘.IIII|III IIIIIIIIIII .. .IIJ . E a E V.-,V.-..~ ..-...E. . - -EEA EEEEEEEET AA \ ' I I L - u L. 0 I I I- I II i>l \ ’ 9 I / \ ’ I I I S ) - AA E -.. ~-_n~ —..>‘—— t..- -'e I I I I I I I I i I I I 3 3 i .. I I I I I \ I I I I I I I I I l I i ..I ‘ ”“4 ...-... —»..p . A ...—7 MW ...—...... ~- 1 u I A / I I'll I V. I ...-w. . duo—AAA.— « ”AA _ .0." I946'50 )I I L I I l I I I 1 -— -4 .-— mm AA], ' I I l I v {IIIAIII‘ II I I I D l I I K I I A p E . E J ,AA-...~.A_. ._ -.....E I I I I I I L .E E A .2--_.A_......-_ -..—.-..A.-. .-EEE._., - - EE E .‘EE ‘1 If - I / / / _ EEEEE - -I A " ' I ( _\ W / // \ /// launusitthl I3 I I: - ‘I I. ‘I I I I I I I I ...- - “-21 A - —- -~-.-._ . gh—c-«f--...-__. A-ww...” ... .. .A/rv. ./. . [III .. . - II .I T. I I - I: . I u .. . /) 4 I I ) r / L__.E.A..—..A-.EA-, .E. . “W’M . AA A A-_A4_AA._...A--A_.._...AE ...A-.. , \ rIIlI.'IIII IIIIII. . ...-a . A--...-. . .. I . .. x . . . w I . U ...- .1 .. .....-~_A-‘ EA. .... .-AA.E-a-- .. E E E . . . . A _ .E E. E EE E. . .. ..E ... E _ . . ._ E E ...A -_-...._.__ ...—.-.“..y—‘A—A-q—w ..-—..A—u—w..-‘ .-- .. -.N ...- «...- E-E .... k. .E . .E . E E. . x I ' I. - ' . . IIIIII I.Iv.Ll|I-IIKIIII¢’IIIIII.IIII III:'\}I III-II In! 2.. I. II II. 5.... A... -.. _—-—'- I I I I t D /..'-_...._ «Aw—....-- E-.. E..E AS 1 | l I I I I III I ‘IIII III-III- II IIIIuiI II .\ I11 II4 7.‘ A I A - II .II- I - I.. .3 ...-2.-.»-..WI. --.I....M.I--.III.,I..II - I. -. III/.4 III-III... I . ........ I. I...- . -. . . L. ; .. . ..\\\I . ,. E .. -. - .. VIII-II‘EI’IIII III I Iill TIA . I p . ’1 / H .. ..‘ A u ‘ IIJ “ .. I, E -, . ...-... o 4 . E . . I/ r ..--J . . . \ .. a1. . I/ E r o. .. .IIII L ... .. A / .- A -. . .I. ---.) A.” ... A). \ . . . . n . .. E A E, E Sm... . A a a E v.. II: -- : - - . E... . E . :..E .- : . E E. E A .A .i . E. .... IIIIJISI.. A E E . . Q CONSTRUCTION AND PLATTING ACTIVITY E i . E E .A .. .E .. E ///. ..E i . .I . ... I II I I- III) E . I. I I, .I- III-WU...- -.- ”NH-IIIIWIII-I II.- I I I I I II- I . I I .. . , I...ul~»h1.- II..I)I.I.. .IIIIIIII II IIIIII.I I-. I .. .l I... I. I-.. I ..I. .I . I .0. a I ..I . J :- ~It.4 .I I III I I I I.) It‘ll) I. )1. II E II In ._ - .. . - . ..I E E _ . .. E E A . . _ i . .. H E A I E E E E E . e E EE . _ A A .. A A . /’ ,2 c , E E .E A I E E E ... . n" E. E E“ E . A E . . .. .\ A A _ A \\ e E E A E .-.\x . A. A A A .\\ d . E x. E E . . :-I- --I,-I- :.. -eI--:I -.- I- I I-:.r-I,-- II: -I---I--- ........... - ---.- --- --.---. r-I.--- --- -- - ... . ,ID'.-I..IIIIIII-.MIIIII-l- \\’ .. I I . I- ..I I II.‘ ... I I/ . .u- .I‘II..II.I.II))II|III.III I . ))-.I I III I: III, I I.II -) IIIvI-II: II ..IIIIII . . I In-I I IIIIII I I III IIIIIIOIIIIC II II «III! I) I IIII II II I I III II I III \I I I. l I II. III. . . \ A x E A ' .....\\ E . A a . A A E A \ \ . b e E E E E .._\ A . x x r A A A E ... .x O .E ._ I A E A A _ .- W H A 0E x... A .. E E .. .. ...-l E E A . E- II. III-.--- I - -- - III; E. - - - - ----III I I - -I-- x - - I I, I I -. . I II- I . II :I I I - IIIIII-III I. _I- - II I- I I -.I ,- - I... ..--I I. -- III I..- -. -. -...- . - . -_ E o --- .. d .. , A E . . ... .. _ _ c. . R n E . . .. E . E . E _E ..w.\ U E E E_E Q h E \ A E A A .\ A H _ A . . I 0 E _ E E . E E . . . — An . \E a... . . M {Ill III.III..;VII .II‘I.I.. .. .H'I’o/A F. e - --II-.. .- , -11... - III - IE EI , . _.-...--I.. . -w--.I-.-.-I .. III - . . -12I23- III; IIIII I :-III2II.A-I-I :I- II . - , MHIII;I-E E ... E p \ A E _ E ..--.. m A. A--.“ >- .v. -.__A..A-...._. II II ;I 'I ‘1 ..A A... m_-—A_~--AA..——ow-A.A' ~>- A ...A --....A. .-....A- ...—A...» “4 f—~ -..... ...-E-.- AA ,--.. AA A... ILA AAA .-.—u _ EA” _EI LA- ......An-E...’ —- . ~- IL. --.,AAAA A ,_ A.” .r--..-o-I.- W ' f‘ . ..III- ‘I I . I ”1!. I. “II I I Ida} .II IIIJ. ”II. I... ... E. IH. .931: .. ..I I ..a. ..I I E A r... A .II... III ..w-.....-I-.-..\ - .. .. AE. ...... A E -.....III. Inn-I...- . .. - .. II. :... .. FIJI .-.-...\ E . . Al u A A . . .. . E . IN ...-I-.. . .. - . E. .....- .A . . II Io III III. N H . _. . .. ., . . . . ...... I.-.,.-..-....II-I.-..I.u..- A J: ...: INA t. II... //X J. . \ ......I. . . . .. I I I . . _ A A.“ AAA-~cuAA-- ”fix I “III A. IIIIII. .IJ. ATIIIIII. ..IIIIIIIIII.II.IJ E E A A FIIIIIII-IIII....I--II.-..I.IIII..II.-I.. . IA . ..I- III .I I III... ...L fits... . I TI A . E A . A _. ...- ~w—A-..AA_ _ I. I .I IIIIII.IIII.-IIII. I |95|‘52 a III.II.IIII.IIIIIIIII IIIIIIII. . A ...I-II... .. ....::I-...II.I TIIIIII?!.-.-II.--- I I o —-- A, .. l I I I I I --AA—J»A»--———~ - ... .. .. ./ /.N:/ . . . x. I 111/ _/\I. J A //.I/IIII . . . ..I. IIIII .7 {III}, {i’II.IIIII-I|III\IIJIILII . r-Irv- l Iii-III! 0.1,: I {III-Ir (II. .I II .I I 4 I." "' ....E. A. . -.-AA- _ . .... ‘______ M- I 7 . . . r A . . _ . VIIII I III IIIP. ..III‘II‘..IIII IIIII... 7’ III .. .I.I III-Iii. I). . IIII .‘nl‘L . ..I..II I... c I... . IIIII IIII .II. :II: .I .I I . II I .. I. a. .. . . .I . ..\\\I\‘ i. IIIII ..I..$IIIII.II.II A \ . A . \ .III . . III--.-. .-II--I..II- III-III L III III -I I.-. I I ‘ \ I I I - EIII.II;III III‘I L ICc ... A—AVA ’.~.-...~._..~. m . III. . III III! III. . II. ..IIIIII I II .. II.II.IIII|I. IIIIIIIIIIA . « - —-———-.—.E-—-—EA.~.—., r—v” ' A CONSTRUCTION AND PLATTING ACTIVITY each dot .I residence FIGURE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l I I I .‘I I AA AA ...I 3 I '- ’ 7 I I I I I I I | I «'4 A \ ......EA—_. ~—\ TAEWAA _ __E____E__EE_,E_.E. . IIIIII‘IIII....VOI [TD/III Ill. 1...: .A fiItbvl. IIIII ... III . III. IIIIIIIIIIIIO III‘II.III.IIIIOIIIII I ....IIII.IIIIIII I ...-l .- IIII. I. III... .I . IIIIIIII I ...I. IIII..’II9 .. IIII III..I... .III..I II I. . . . .. I III . . .l I ... .I - II.II I (IIIIIIII.II. .I. III-IIIIIIIIb III-III. I III. I- . I I I III I.- I ... II A . x A A _ \ A . A A A A E A A A A A A A. A A \ . . . ‘ x. u x \ ~ n \ E , . x .. . \ . e . . E .\ .. A . .. . A W . ...I I. :09... I-IIl-IIts. K. - I. I ...III II I. I 51.. I. I .III III III ... II II. II I . I o I III I I. ..Ill. IIIIIIsIII-IIIII . I III... I .. III IIII... . 0.! II It . III. II-I IIII'II. .I .v I . .II.‘ IIIIIIII:I.IIIIIIII\I.I. \. \A . x A v . .. .E AE ... - I LAAA EA A..- \ I /" . .-I /,1- \/ ..II. IIIIIII‘I III-IIIIIIIY I -. I . IIIIIII -IIIIII I.I..Il .III I .\....\..II-I.II.II I II-..I----I..IIII.I-.-. \\. n l953'54 \ I I II IIIIIIIIII III I I‘ll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII‘I III III IIIIIIIIIII III IOd CONSTRUCTION AND PLATTING ACTIVITY each dot = Iresidence FIGURE A ~——..~ —r——’ ‘W— V. F" ' L—.——-__. in. {I ‘IIIII! rI..CIIII-.L v .AII l IIIII'III:\.II . . ...- -.... .---. . .I . I. 1 ..-I- III... III... :IIIIIIIIIIIIJ. . . _ .. .. III. .III IIIIIIIII‘III'L .. .. -2 — _III-.I. II...I.\(..(...1IQI.. \. . . _ ”VIII ..III I III, III. IIIIIIII J‘IIIIIIQ 1 I . . ..Ih II.1I\I II. IIIIIIIIII.II IIIIIIIIQIIIIIIII . III. uI.. .« I4 I I I; ...-I I. I IIII. III. III II . III III I! IIIP'II.|IIII \i.)¢b.sIIIII.IICIuIIIIIIv III I) I I I I \I‘... I... . PIII I . _....—,..-«_..—~— -~ » II. III IIIIIIIII‘oIlyIII-IIII.II‘ III IIJI. I. .... II II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII: «IIIIII Wall}... 4‘. . . rI.III. ./ LII... . il‘III-ul 1.1.4 2 _ (J! . 2 . .../2-1s . .WIJV: .111}: 3.10.. IIIIIIV It’ll; I .I.I.. .. “JIIII. . I . ._ . . . 2 wan.-- . n-" A I... I.I.-.. . :II I IIIIIIV .. IIIII IIIAIII..IIDII III .I. I .... .. . . . IIIII I‘II I II (III. II IIIIIIIIII .. {III}. / r J / r/ f I .71).. I. __ 1.. I \ . 2 _ y I I III... III I I. JIIIIIII I 1‘ n — . III .2 I - - . I I .. . . .. .. . _. . ._ f 4 . ...—.... .-v..-,_ » I ‘ III! I I I I Illiql III} IIIII. Iii! v) I . ..II III. ”WW—...” — .... I . I EI-II I IIIIIIQ Illl III I I I I I _.H__~----."_..-__- .-.—.--2 \ _— -.. ...-«....-. \ \ I I I I I L VIII! IIII' .... III TTT 1 . IIIIIII‘ III I}!I-I¢II.I . "I‘rI \: I'IIIIIIII IIItIIIIIII .IIIIIIIIIII III III. ‘.IIS I. I .I. I I I ..-- -. I :§T I II II :I I ,I II i! I I: ‘I I It ‘2 ‘I I I iIIIIoIII. III 9. ....I I1.\.II .. II. I. I \IltI IIIIIAI II III) IlvOIl . _. . ____..- ~.._—._.,-.... ...... .2. -..- . . . . s r, III ‘v'III . . ..IIIIIIII IIIIIII. III.) (II [VI III IIIIII IIIIII III! II . m , 2... 2. . .... . .. . .. _. . .... . ., u. .. a _ _./ . 22/- h 2 . It .... ...III..IIIIIIIII III. )1 Iv IIL {IIIIIIIII .wvl I _ I I D.nIIkvllv\vI\tI I. .I..I.I.||¢Kl.li-.(.§¢ v1 . III . . I 1 . 31“ I ...—.w ...»..- -7-’ .- . » ..vl W I III I {III ..IIIII . ...... .- v— I ill-II IIIIQI‘II III, I II.IlI:~.'III . n ‘ . . r —- --.. w.~-m-.——--‘flr 'I I I - -..--...-‘..--_‘-..'.. ...—.5“ I I I I I I I -.-..-IT" .IIV...I£..II\OII.II.OII.II II. IIII‘ a I . -4 4W...- ...-...- ..-... .... .....- . __ L- ...-w,— M- .... - .—w——-N ~. --. .... . .. ...—..-... -.. . - «-~- . . - m.....¢.....¢.,_...-._...... -.. II II. II; . .IIIIIIIII III A III I4I\IJ|I€ .IIIII IIIIILI . \- --..--,.-_. , .5. 2-.....WMW .. ....-- ’ I i L..-» . .-. .— -... ......2. ' "...-w.»—.~ - L-_---_ I ‘. IIOIIIIIIIII‘II.IIIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIIIZIIII ‘1...IIII|I4I..III .. v ...—...“. ..---.1 . W “...-...- "‘. m . . .. . . . III .-III. IIIII'I- II IIIII'IIIII I. I I. I I . I IIIII r I III) I 1 I r \\ OI ..rIIIIIIII.I I.) II II; It)! I! I‘ll 4.: . . .x. u .\ .\ III: {II ...II... :.....IIII... I. .1115. . F'II‘IAII l.IIII.. ’tgin II~I¢2$I\ .- I” III IIIIIIIII \\ \ I..4..IIII...$I . V \ ..4 w..._..-._.....g...-. ...-— ......— .< I III . ..fl/C‘V'd- --.. III I‘i'. I IIIIT .I‘..II .. IIIIQI . FlIlIIIIIIIItIIIWI .- I I .- -.-. .' .. .... ..-- .¢\ , .. «. ‘ . ...—... -..”... .“ . w . --—...-.-—.-—_ ..-“ —¢-.-.—- ...v ...—- L ._ ‘1. I I I I I I 4»... I' h. V I PW“ . I I l . I‘I‘ ....» IoJH’IiC‘I‘kE IIi)?.u§-“sl ...TIPAIIVIIIII. [I'll-III. I . I . I . II.I..I. 4 . W a . , 2 I. . .. . m .. _ _ . . I . . . ~ . . — .. .. II..:.-.-;. .IIII...III. (I . . ._ I .III: Ix. \\ w / quIIIIIoIV \ . ‘ . r c . l ...l, . .. .. .../.- / f _. \ /./4II \..\ I .93 ’fr/ #1 r. {1. \\ r..b;/’I \\\ . M47 x, .. {I III .. I.I.. .. 2. ... ..... --....I. I... ..__ _ I . If". ’I (CID. a I. ‘lIllICI'IOln-IJ ..‘ I ‘IIIIIP‘IYIS‘ IIIIIIIIII‘IIIII‘IIL viii- 44' I. u 0 I‘ll} .- . I . G “ Iflinlfi‘lflbtl WIEZCI 'l .. I C! I I I "II IIII I- ......IIISIIIIIaII I II I- III IIIIIIIII m l I; III- I IIII. 1* ql I .I Will: II III. . NI... . .. . v . III II .. ..III II..I.IIIII II ..I I'IIIIII ..lv‘I.rI) II II IIIIII: l IIII.}II..\ III. I! I III. I I I1" « .. v .. r M .. . AfiIn/I ... . . I- w . . ~ . III ..I. ... ._ I .. L.\\\MM\\W 223$) -..-.....l/o I . \ ..' ' _‘chl—flw- \. K \ \ .. .r ‘M... \ \ \\ .ll . --—--v" - . 1."... 1 1 .Jfl-m-M-L «..--1*. W- -u'u.‘ 1 1 l 1 ~—~——~— v "x '. ~ 1 1 3.92 52; L . ‘\’ Sulfll. Ir: I11 Ivalri!-S‘:AV:-C (11.....- I'. .1I 1-.I.110|.D {5.11 .1 ‘. 1, '1. ... II... ..II- . , . _ . . _ a) . t . . _ .OJ «1.1. . I . . . I — \Irhk‘K‘) . fl '1..5 11....o.r.11l11».1.. 1)- L . l. . - _ .- V \\\-\ (I. {I . - I}!!! 111.1,.-.1 5..“ 19:11. la - . ... _ -L-LW-LHWLH- * ; JL-- -.1- 7"“ _L. .. ..w n... .‘ \f‘x fl! 4L..-L_- - I f 1 1 f f" S l ._J L...._.-_...---..- --..-- - 3 T I 1 1. $5! .1... . .1..|. .1 1.1 11.11. - 1 - .1 :11 r I/ v - .. .-. - . --.: .1 w _. . .1. ..\.H\ ..x . W _ I 11-.....) I I . L .\ / 1.1111). ll 1 u '11... $.- ‘bit .1 I} L . _~ _ p _ .r- L. _ L L .... ...-..--- 1 .. .. .-..fi.»‘.. . ~ . . . ./.\1/.\.(I r .. — I— m . _ //1. .1 I . ~ « a ’11 /1 I], r.-- ... - ! 1 i i‘ L. . ' \ -.)\ . -..“.s... m . _ I. _ J 1 l ..Ovl‘f I o p . 1m ..z #_ v a“ filill . H M w XIV/V 1 M ‘ \\ _N :..-um. M O I. : z ._ . ...--..--. \ :- .. . t .;. . - .. _ .... i 11... .... t _ \ _ m n - n m 1/ _ ... . _ u I l . J a \ ~. _ ol|.||l_ . 1 1 11- 1 111111 ..." 1....- .51).... .w-K. A. . ‘ C rum .. ~~\ 1'. I . £11.11) .114 fi\1.11111:.1-1l..|.1..-a- - .II- 011(14. - 1 1.. 44.. 1... 1|:1-Oiu»?l.l....oro-r5 . v 4 I m . r . w .. m L _ fl ., c A m \ W~ . .. g _ . m m m I -l w w .. _ , , _ . . L _. L ._ a. _. . _ H .. .. . a. .. .. M , i ..f I / w . _ _ _ i. .1. . . . . 1111!"! 1 ..| . . “T1111! ..., I _w . H w M. M \ xx » W “ ..M J. _ ...\.\ . _ _ I t . . \ l ' _. L_ LL xx _L . . . . w . .\ . . M ... : T . .. \x m m . . _ \ _ a . M LL . \\ m .- 5 . . . .1) ‘ \ _ : . L - - : . _ ..--11-11-11- -. 1.. L ...-1 .- K -. .. - - L .. - - _ - - - - - 111 - - 1 I C . -, . - .1 ! . 1 . . .1 . . . ...- . .-. l ...- ,-11L «1.1-1.111. -11.-.-.-1-1, - 1111-..--....1..11..l.11. .1..- 1 1 . 1.. ..r-1 1. r1 ..--1 ......- 1 b\- ~ M l . 911'1 Iii-1.1.1.1.}, 1.1121121111- -l-11|1. . .1.- ..1 ..1 .11 .. 1111.. .4 “II.“- ...-.1 :..-:11 41.1.1 ... . ...-...... 15.. wl1l1. ..- ..I 1-,- ...--1 .- -. a. . n 4; A. _ _ L M L. _ L W . W w . .- _ ,. I -. . m . . . u. T / . ... . t M H L m u...- a 1; I 1 1 .. .- ..., . . w . a m ..., .- /., . “- .1 br M .. . _ . _ M. H . L . 1 . -/. L - I .. * m n L . w .. -. . a...- N. . . . . . h L . . f L 1. - .. 3---. -. .. . . 1’ L 1. .l / W W ._ . .. . . . M L ... .1 . a; .- ... , ...-.11... ..1 ..--161.11.}:- All.!-D-1I111 11.-....11. :11...- 90.1.11. 1. :c.l.:_ ‘ 1. 1- .-.--11-.-...1...1-1. 421-11.? :1. . : 1.- .1. -1-.1-1-1-...-11-11111111 -13...-- .- M I . ' . . . . 1-11 .Ilnb 1.1!..- Ll . l. \- 1.. I1 \'!..)I Irll."b’ll ‘ll 9, 1'. 1‘ Q”II' 5 .- .. 147.114,... .11. .- 1 \ , \ U / . l;— ..--"-M_ ,. 1 , ‘ l I ,._ .....- .- -, .--—-—-—~—--— I I - . .s D II I- I I «Ll I...ll!1|0v :1. 4"! 1‘1 1.004.... ‘Iii‘gii ~~ --..-.- . -1.-11...11l.11)1-1-011..1Cll.'q|ltl’11 .- .. It 0" ‘ Dll V jig-ll a 6" n 171.511.? .. .vwma . ”-..- l955'56 m w v . . . L L 4 . M .- .. _ .‘ . n n k. R Z \x. N l _ .fl _ h- - - - . \ . fl . d . _ \.\\ . N _ . . . . . . .L . t... \ \ N u m “L L .. _ ., w M . .- .1 . u v a \ \ I r . ’rz . .\. - \ I -, .- ... m .. M . H . A .x I? I. \ A u . .h \ . . w . . w . . \ ‘ 1 g . . . - L . 1-1 . _ . r . \\\\11 1.-/- ’(K\ I; . m ._ L w _ ‘ \ \ Ill/ 1.1.‘1: . ... _ F . . 7’11 'P'CI. .‘glitp’llvll a #1 __ . I; .H-1 -1I-./.....-.1b1.1 .1 .11- » _ U . .. 1:11. 7111- ..-... y - . - - --- -- 1-11111-- .. . :..-:.- ---.zm1fi-11-111Hn-1-1H-11-1- ...-H...- . -...n4111111-1-111. - ./ -1- -- -. - .- i 2, A .111 1 4 «:1- . -- . .1. -11 . . J « ... . -./ , .,. .n . « .L . w“ "u“ - (ti...a. IN/ I m . 0 ..Ill.».:l-1I..1 1 . . - // _u * w 1 , L z . / H/ . fl * . h . . M [Ill/ll ‘ L _ . a . m .4 //.II/ I r w . n In I - . w u / I; t » K/ . 4. . M ... . ... I M; b# M * m r - . v .. r. l. I. -. / ... f . W‘ F _ ._ . [I / ~ _ L“ {I}, .. 1/ F1111: . . - - - . x 111. . .- .. . . I1 .. .4 .5 u . .. _ I... in K 11+ * v v , / 9!! L L . a m o All I / _ V I ~ .. - .1. M M T- - 1 . 111”“...11-1111 - -111 111. / (--.-1 11-- - - -. . . . L E. 3- .- 1 1.- ..1 1 .r. - L w _ L i - A... a J . . V . m w L _ . . ., v m” M . . w .. . , . _ w . . _ ~ . , w . r . _ M . L . . . . _ _. _ .. . w . d 0 . _ _. -1 1 F a _ . . . 1.- -11 . 1111 . ._ w . _ . “ ~ # . W M . . . . L . _ . . . . u . “ u \1 \- _ L L _ . _ L, _ . L L y u N . . . . ..u .. w a“ .' ' . . , FUI‘I‘I‘EI‘I‘Q.I-iz\fi . . . ” £131.11: ”fl .- .. -. .- - - -..-.1- ...-1111.11-15.1- 11; I “Wu-.axhhflSILILIFUI-b lvl 1.1.11.1. -ui. 11 1|: 1 .1. v . ... . C . 1111- . - .1- 1.- -1 -..-1.1111 - - al-1111111- . . . - - ; . - .. . - - . - 1. . . 14111 111111111 . .. _ . .1111!!- 11.1-.- - .. . .1... i .. 1 ... .111-1l|l-11|1 \IL ||.\ 1) - 'llrnl- I - 1/ .'.I.I¢'f-.1n.11xlcl¢|1.1\l-1l o ..11. I 1.11.111131-. 1 I . . \x I I .1 111.11-1'.1PI 11 l.- ‘ I'lll I 1:0.ch It 01"! 0“)!!!" I I. [A ‘. \‘ L 11I11ll- .114 I . .. r . h. ‘ . _ _ \ . n w . IJ _- .. f I V .x . m . .. .H ~ .. \ « L 4 . _n > p. - ~ ~ .. m A]. . ~ , H v .u. .. . _+ .h . .- M 11 . 1. ~ . . 1.11.. 1 c . .l. .\ _. w . .. my 1 v u t. . e .. .... _. o . .. . . .. ’ L H. m. . w . . . . . . . m a H /./ . 1. . L w ... . /,. . j. M _ -1 .- :..-.-. :..-:..--.1- - .- 1 - -.--:1. 1 . . .111 11111l..1 .. . ...: ..[11 .111..-- 11 1 lilo-11101 - II." t I. II, - .. - 1. |1111lli -1.1. .1 . 11-1111. -1.1-..l.-1.II1.1.|Iv.I~l.-b||illlol Aw. I v . 1i..1.42o.¢' ...-0-19.1.1, ‘ . 1‘1 . -.{fr- ...-1. L .... - -...-- .-.-11. - .. -. ... ... q m 4 . :...- .. t . I- i'.’1l.!’\‘l1.‘l'll ‘7 — — . _ ” AL .k tiniwxl Mk‘ . .I'Tl‘in (V w... . ... L L T"'" ’11 I w . _ h .. L fill-11%! 1' $11!..II-Ilv1 .|. .1. I act“?! l-.|1-\111.f.11....- . . . L tux-1““ «1.1.1.: 1 r _ _ W _ . -. -_ -_.__-.‘..—‘a—— <. \ 1 1 I - ~—... .. «-..—...... -.-“... .-.-5.....-- -_ . -..—...... . . ._ . . ... ' I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 l O \ l 1 o 1 I I ( 1 I l 1 l 1 I 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 T 5 ( I \ i 1 I 1 I 1 t 4 1 1 1 t i 1 1 I I t l x 0 1 ) CONSTRUCTION AND PLATTING ACTIVITY 0' . m Av .Av . _ . . . _ r L. m _ O I . L ., . . / ~ L. . “ 1 II 8 , _ L .... L . . . M _ a .. w m m x _ NY d - :-- 1- -1- .... .- ..--1.11.21-11.11.-. :11 111-:--.-- 111.111.111.11-.. .1111-.. 1.1-1-- - 1.-..11111211-1. 112.1111, -111.- . . -- .. -. - - .- .1-.-:1--1-. -11-. g C. R m _ . . .. “Hv .nu . . . .c C _ . . \ ._ W . .\...\\ G .L L _ . \ I a _ . n - -. x x _ \- .. \ .Av . ,. .- v H ... a \ F .- .111 ...-".11.... .11.. f... 1-.,1..-1...-\ 1 1., ..--1.. 1111-1 l’1 11 . .-.1-1.--111111 | -. - .- 1 -|- 1 -1 - “lb ...le 1 1- ... .1 11 1 1| I 11181111111011 ... 1 _ 1111-1 -1. (- . 1 1 1 v 11.11\N111-11 1 11'... 11 '1 I: ll- nlllv 11 vol 4! . ux l1: 0...! .1 111. .I!.I-1.1.\.11|. .1...- 1’1 .1 . .Ikl.11’.1l1.11..|-‘l ‘1.) fl {‘1‘} II .1 . a . IN ‘. _ .. x h L -51}... for becoming small communities. The largest of these, Thendara Park, contained approximately 113? lots. It is difficult to assess accurately the number of lots contained as many were planned for garage sites and beach cabanas. Thendara Park was laid out on a rolling hilly area north of walter's Lake. The subdivision contained a golf course, which was built, and a beach promenade for group use, the dedication of which has since been broken. At one time all the roads in Thendara Park were laid out and the lots staked for prospective buyers. Many of the roads still exist al- though most of them are now eroded and impassable for an auto- mobile. Of these 1137 or so lots only 48 had been built upon by August of 1956. As a group the subdivisions platted be- tween 1920 and 1930 have a low percentage of lots built upon, less than 25 percent. Most of these subdivisions have been deve10ped with a mixture of summer homes and year round resi- dences. There is a possibility that some of these will de- ve10p further as many of_the building sites available are suitable for deve10pment. The one problem involved is ob— taining title to enough contiguous lots for construction pur- poses. Many of the lots platted during this period are narrow and unsuitable when used singly. It is difficult to obtain a number of contiguous lots as the ownership of these parcels has become obscured and obtaining a clear title can be labor- ious. In fact, very often the township has no idea to whom tax bills should be sent, for lots are often included in the assets of an unsettled estate. -55- Almost all of these subdivisions have two character— istics in common. The first is the attempt to establish a "country club" type of development, thus the use of lake property. Secondly, they were platted by peOple who were at best land deve10pers only; that is they were in no way con- nected with the eventual construction of residential units. The 1930's saw a drOp in subdividing activity, as one would eXpect. Only two subdivision plate were recorded; one of them was an extension of a subdivision laid out in the 1920's; the other one was a supervisor's plat of tax re- verted prOperty. Both were near lakes and have been built mainly with cottages. As one would expect, some retardation of develOpment is present due to a few “sub-standard“ dwell- ings which were erected in the '30's and early '40's. or the 115 lots which were added by these two subdivisions, only 5h or #7 percent have been built upon. In Round Lake Woods subdivision (Figure XI) one can see that only a skeleton of the planned road system of the earlier plat exists, and con~ ditions prevailing there may have had a detrimental effect on activity in Supervisor's Plat #2. There were only four plats recorded during the “war periodI from 19h0—1945. Three of these four were “suburban farm“ type of develOpment. That is, lots varied in size up to five acres or more. The percentage of lots built upon in a subdivision such as this may be misleading. For example, of the 32 lots in Supervisor's Plat of Independence Farms, only 18 lots have been used; however, this represents 25 FIGUREX. ROUND LAKE‘WOODS SUBDWMNON ._ --— -..- .-.. v-v... ~-.-—<-— _¢ ... . .....vh. .. -.. .-iir-.-_-.- - ' ' ”MW ." " ‘V‘" ""“""T"" ""- ‘iill'. J. .b. F» ... nmin -h—-———..——-. PRINCETON DR. (If C.) LLJ -.- J J q >_ ‘ 1 1.1.1 14 , n a m i .7 l 4 v ._ w l i. I _ 5L l .H M i . l ., g r . . i v T M x ._ w m U __ H H M H . m m l l \ t I I i ; ..fl‘ ilu ,. v~.._ . _ 3 --.-._.o-...-. ~_....._.L - (7.. w‘ _»_5 LAKE AVENUE Jh—‘r- ”...; «..-... ...H A...._..,... ROUND -57- homes. This is not a rare occurrence in Independence Town- ship with regard to large acreage parcels for homesites. One might speculate whether large parcels, as these are, meet with a general requirement for a homesite. Few of the homes in Independence Township are of the size or cost which one finds on sites such as these further south in Oakland County. Most of the homes occupying lots which have been split are frame and of moderate price. The inference one could draw from this occurrence is that the upkeep of a large parcel of land is prohibitive if landscaped and that the interest in land for kitchen gardens does not usually run to 5 or 6 acres. Even on these split-parcels, it is a rare sight to see one completely utilized by the owner. It is possible that data could be compiled for the purpose of resolving the ”maybe“ posed above. Utility func- tions for varying sizes of land parcels could be obtained for different income groups. The results could substantiate or deny the conclusion which was offered in passing. There are variables which would have to be accounted for other than parcel size; wooded acreage would be one of these, for ex- ample. If the inference drawn above is substantiated, we may find that many rural zoning ordinances which include “sub- urban farms' or acreage parcels under another alias, are pro- moting a land division which is not really desired. The elimination of this category would in fact aid the planning of many townships. Most suburban farm subdivisions are -55- strictly road frontage prepositions; that is only one lot deep and that lot generally quite deep. The isolation of interior parcels of land and limited access to them which is left makes subsequent develoPment difficult and in fact may result in an inferior road pattern or a forced unsatisfactory circulation. (For an example see Figure XII,subdivision plat - Clarkston Ridge Estates.) Figure I11 Clarkston Hilde Estates S“biivisicn: The results of the isolztien of land. Scale: 9" equals 1 mile o—o——-—-..- *w— 77-..4——— .. ... - “fl“w” “w—"-#"——‘.~ ‘1r 0"“ " 0’“? '1?" Clarkston Community School hopprty Clarkston Ridge Estates “Walden. Bead,____ .~ - .. - ...-.-.--wuu- D n -.....[m if I“ -....D i ._ .L_,__. ., ,-i_,_.- Stern and Selignan Subdivision The selling of Small parcels of land fronting on section line roads has made the develoorent of interiar lands difficult. Clarine for circu- . lation and tnis is a "cul-de-sac" one half alle in lengti. In addition the cost of lnstslling an access rosi sl{\;-'~r 2"."'I.fi,.-,._:I '31; xi (“-1 bu“*s-‘*; ”- "' .. ‘ . J I“ 3 a C .A Y‘ , J1"O.."..{.. - “1'93“. IC .. 7’; O. I ..---- .-- -1- .-.--.....-- . . 1“ -a“ . ‘ ‘ I ‘ ‘ - A.“ - . .‘x . u:1.- .i5A' 2L".I--1 . A.. In .f‘ . ‘3‘..-r‘" -.J 1.. -.....I... ‘I A. '. ' 5 ‘ ’~\ “‘A A - -‘ .. ..‘5 “hr.“ C . M . . I:.L.Ln\- ' .- . E J ..., 'L . ‘ ~- .7 r” . 1/Sf‘ . \ p-w -.. ' ‘7.L :hvcur. DIAI: LOSC .' t-34:..'Vr T‘\'7;{.A ‘ F'(. ..L: _-;, .. 1 $2.-.." .5.-- .. J ‘. ‘ ‘ -" " ‘ - , . "I . ~ . . ‘1 -‘ «A _‘ _-—‘ v s : . I V! ‘ ‘1 . ofi fl -...rl \Jn‘. A ..,_._ FIS‘ I a ; l' :K .3 Ail- é? fic:'..,{1*8 55L '10' A. {L ,I ‘5‘ ..--g .. I . 4 . I.‘ s ”A .3 r.,- 7‘ ‘1 ~r‘f‘ .. . , 9' ~ ‘ . a p , § 5‘ ., \ LDC ”I" ~-, _,‘ ‘ II‘ '. 1,4: 04 .... \ In. .-.)..5," . " “ .‘v ‘I :5 ' 5 er ~,-. ~ ' $ - e; V‘ ' 'I “'3‘ €- V‘J - CC; ‘<'-\'-:.’)J.U MAI-) L". lthJl Jul->8 II": IR'IC- . ._ ..r‘- ‘. -72- was of this type, and also most of the activity in neighbor— ing townships. An example of this is the phenomenal spurt in the number of permits issued in waterford Township in 1951. (See figure XV.) This indicates, perhaps, that as subdivision activity and project building activity increased with the recovery of the construction industry, those townships near— est to the urban centers supporting suburban growth attracted the most residential development. As this activity was in— creased and competition for the available building sites be- came more intense, deve10pers tended to move to adjacent areas where land prices were just beginning to be bid up. The rate at which the number of building permits issued in Independence Township from 1953 on increased as contrasted with the other adjacent townships, except waterford, would lead one to believe that it will receive a greater share of construction activity in the near future than its neighboring townships. The location of construction activity can be examined on the series of maps showing activity during various periods of time. It should be noted that activity before 1953 was mainly individual homes in older platted lands or rural dwellings. Project building definitely started in 1953-54 with a marked, definite increase in 1955-56. As was remarked before, it appears that current activity is almost wholly centered on the eastern fringe of Clarkston and in the eouth~ ern tier of sections which border on a few of the large lakes in waterford Township. -73- There has been a variety of housing built in recent years in Independence Township. There is a range in price from slightly below $10,000 to $17,000. This, of course, is in project construction. In a few subdivisions where houses are individually built on lots which are sold unimproved ex- cept for roads, there are homes of $30,000 and $40,000 value being built. One feature is shared in common by most of these units; they are ranch homes, only partly brick or frame, do not usually have basements, and have septic tanks. There are either individual wells or a community water system for a subdivision. Platting Activity in subdividing can be presented clearly by the tables showing number of subdivisions by township per year, and by the number of lots or an average of lots per subdivision. The number of subdivisions in Independence Township per year has increased; the number of lots per subdivision has also increased. (See Tables VII, VIII and IX and Figures XIX and XX.) The number of subdivisions per year in the neighboring townships has remained fairly constant with a little yearly variation. For the period from 1950-1957 Inde— pendence Township leads all neighboring townships except Waterford Township in number of subdivisions and total number of lots. There is a variation of great proportion in the quali- ties exhibited by the various subdivisions. Most of them 7 . 0 5. I. a) O... l O ....) k a (I. I) L/ (J 5 .k/ 9 I7 9 4/ Q] Q/ 9 9 1 1 1 1 l l l l _ a s . L a r b b AI I— 4 d d d A d \\4 \ .. 7).}... In; 03.3... oudEHHoAEEeH suggest... ..u 23.8 2.8 8.3 83...... .60-.,........0ena . $9 I am? 0.88....“ .8 332 23222.2... Mg enema ‘ 7 .3 4 Ema. it (3 UN ~75- : mmma ma 0 mmma mHmmZBOB HUZHQZHMHQZH MOh Qmoomm ho ma¢qm ZOHmeHQMDm 5H NH mama a H a H m o H o o o m m o N a m m m n 0 an AA HH ma «H m m N m m a a a o o m a ma H H :mma mama mmma Hmma owed unmalommd mMHmmzaoB BZHOdHQd 924 HH>_HAm0n0 moano chansons? edeaemsdsdm oeapaom mocoucoaocsH mozmnzmmHQZH .nmoomm ho B4Am ZOHmH>HQmDm mam @904 no mmmzbz H0¢mm>d HHH> Bauds mm 0H mam mm oma Hun 0 ma- mom mmma NH mm boa 00H mom mma sum mmma cedomdsaoo wcacseam Hmcoamom 0094.009aaomonpoz mm 0mm mm 22H «no ma mNH Hap mmma on mom 2 00m mom 00H mam mud amma NH 0N mam OH m0 :0: mm me ONH mmma mm mm mm ma: mma 00 0mm mmaa mm m: 5H m: 3H: MHH HmmH pdonpon "009500 :0 mm NOH .mmm Hmm 0mma cacaoboa0 coucmhm oxen spas: waouxo coaao onouampmz eaeflcwsasdm ocapcom ooaoccomoccH bmmfllonmfl I mmHmwzzoa azaodfind nz¢ mHmQZBOB chmnzmmHQZH I_QHBB'?’/’l a I"; 4:}. I . 6 I . l I 1 ‘3 i . ’ ! ——-——. . ~—_.__. ...-......._ . ‘. V -,_,-...,-,_._._ .‘ o -— - ‘~- -—1 -#-o—--L—-‘O-~o-<-o- o L——-.———.—J‘.— ..— - ‘ 1N ‘ ' i ' I , s I i i " I I __ - j _ L w _ - , __._ e, _ - e T : i I o F ! l . . g g ; s . : e Areas brought into district in attempt to bring all of the Two. in Area ceded to Brandon Twp. in return for part of Ifire-union District. Sessions and acquisitions are Subsequent to 1940 ... . ..-...a-. - ...HMH‘- ’_ --.. .. --..- -0 Source Figure XXVI I : u M... - | I I ‘_7‘_7'- _ ‘_ - h.. _ .. __ — .- _ - ,. A» .. __H ___- _. __ _..,.. ; _‘__ '31 arkston - x.) - / / V r . l ! ¢ f s ! ‘ T g 1 : r ' i , 5 I a i 5 - + .. - o— - ... . .A-~-_.--.-._~..___. ._._..- .-, .-.., | CGISOLIDATED 1950 _ fl .‘ ; - ...“... -... -- l L p I - - - 1 I § I I 3 _ -0 “0....-." J _, _ fl - - -.. -.........._..-_-..._... 00m unity 3cnosls Consolidation of schools; 1950 . -.._— ...-....-.—-_.- —-_ __ .. ... -...— ....H----._a—-u_.—_.. Fi'WI‘e A :71! ; 00;“.9'31135tion 0: 3.310013 1951 and lib: ”H "* i — — - . __ -\ -.-, _ : I 1’ ~ H HHHHHH .‘ ' C... ' .- . :c-:=:::§:'-“:':-:o:;: ' — - . A 0‘ 'I . ' ,.‘ _fl -, ,._‘ N-- 00.03011 Jotéd 101 M J’Sonsoliriaxtmj 17-) Figure XXVI II School Pop tfion of Clarl-cston Cozr'rmmity Schools by distnct 9 S L. r- LL.:71_J Each black square represents 10 school-age children Each enclosci ruitn square equals 10 shiliron in 19:: fine; erelosoi blecn square equals 0 chiliren niipfi or subtracted bctween 1935 and 1907 Source: ClarkstOL Cox unity Schools ton 00:11?“ .n- 1112’; f; , Lernh EL? 0 :\ u can: "3 1‘ F! & a rrn V J 4h n". . 1 I .‘q 0.. I. v. 70 4.4-.) .,. ~100— various districts from 1945—l9h9. After 1949 it is impossi— ble to separate the districts as the reports are incomplete for some districts, and some reported only every other year. The school district for the Clarkston Community Schools com— prises districts in other townships. A portion of Independ— ence Township is in other school districts. An effort has been made and is continuing to be made to incorporate all of Independence Township in the school district. Only one por— tion of the township will not be included. This is the part of the Village of Waterford which lies within the township. The communal ties in this case are felt to be too strongly oriented towards waterford Township to be severed. Table XIV shows the school plant in the school year ending June 1952 and the changes and additions. There are plans being considered for the construction of a separate high school building and gymnasium; when this is completed, the present Junior and senior high school will be used only as a Junior high school. With a school district of approximately 51.4 square miles and an increasing population, school transportation is very important. This has necessitated the purchase and main- tenance of a fleet of school buses. Since 1951 when the school district had approximately ten school buses, the dis- trict had acquired eight additional buses by 1956. Coincid- ing with this, they have constructed a three stall bus garage for maintenance and installed hoists and other equipment necessary for repair work on buses. ...105... TABLE XIV SCHOOL PLANT CLARKSTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 1952-1956 NO. of Grades Year Name of Building» Rooms Served Status 1952 Clarkston High 22 7-12 Operating Clarkston Station 1 1—6 closed Bailey Lake 2 1-6 Operating Sashabaw 10 1-8 operating Hunter 1 1-6 operating Springfield 6 1 1-6 operating Andersonville 1 1—6 Operating Independence 6 1 1-6 closed White Lake 1 1—6 closed total 30'~ 37 Operated 1953 Sashabaw 10 1-6 Operating Andersonville Snow) 7 1—6 Operating Clarkston (new 7 1-6 Operating Clarkston High 22 7-12 operating total Operated 33 195h Bailey Lake (Open) 2 1—6 Operating Hunter (open 1 1-6 Operating Andersonville (Open) 1 1-6 Operating Clarkston Sta. (Open) 1 1-6 operating Sashabaw 10 1-6 Operating New Andersonville 7 l—6 Operating New Clarkston 7 l-6 Operating Clarkston High 22. 7-12 Operating total Operated 51 1955 Sashabaw 14 1-6 operating New Andersonville 11 1-6 Operating Clarkston 14 1-6 Operating Jr.~Sr. High School 22_ 7-12 Operating total operated 72 1956 Sashabaw 14 1—6 Operating New Andersonville 11 1-6 Operating Clarkston 14 1-6 Operating New Sashabaw 24 1-6 Operating Jr.-Sr. High School 2%_ 7-12 Operating total Operated 9 In addition in the school year 1956-1957 a seven room addition was started on the Clarkston Elementary School and a five room addition to the Jr.-Sr. High School. ~106— The above material presents us with a picture of an increasing fixed plant and material which the school dis— trict has had to acquire to enable it to adequately serve the increasing school pepulation. Taxation The tax load in Independence Township has increased greatly since World War II. The increase has mainly been in school taxes which were necessarily increased to provide facilities and services for the increased school pepulation. This has been intensified by the rapid growth in pOpulationl and school enrollment shown in the previous section. Future population growth will further intensify this problem, and probably bring with it a desire for additional community facilities such as fire, police, lighting and very possibly water.. The addition of a community water supply may be im- minent. A prOposal for a county water authority is now pend— ing. The bond issue necessary to provide this service will raise county taxes, aggravating an already aggravated tax picture. The load on the individual prOperty owner (Of resi— dential prOperty) is great, especially in light of the ser- vices the community offers. One individual interviewed paid $175 property taxes in 1956 on a home which cost $10,500 in 1955. Remember there is only one constable, 3 fire trucks (partially volunteer service), a small county library, no water system or sewer system, no public lighting or streets -107- paid by the township. The intensity of the load on the home owner is a product of a narrow tax base; most of the assessed value in the township is residential properties. The other individual hit by the urban encroachment via taxes is the farmer. When land is being sold and bought for subdivision purposes, agricultural land is most often taxed on the basis of its value for residential uses. This often forces Operators out of agriculture. In Independence Township only six Operators are farming fullwtime, and the part-time Operators were actually hobby-farming. This has in Independence Township provided land for development, but much of it has apparently been purchased for speculation and is at present lying idle. The Opposite approach would be to tax all undeveloped land as agricultural land and would most likely encourage speculation as holding costs would be reduced as far as taxes are concerned. Either alternative using an equal assessment for both, or an equal classification, has inherent problems. However, it is presently impossible legally to assess them on different bases. One possibility is Offered by using similar logic to that applied in urban areas; one would not think of assessing land zoned for resi- dential use on the basis of its value for industrial purposes, and in this area the master plan usually precludes such spot rezoning. If there were a township planning act, allowing townships to develOp a master plan, it is possible that this reasoning could also apply to lands zoned for agriculture, 'which.offers hope of saving agricultural lands in areas where ~108~ it is desirable to save high-quality farm land. The tax problem then has two general areas; the first is the heavy load brought to bear on the individual home owner, and the second one concerns shifts in land use, which often may run counter to a desired rate of deveIOpment, ef- fected by the equal assessing of all undevelOped land. To determine the extent to which the tax load of the individual has increased, we need only compare the services offered in a given period with that of a previous one, and also compare the taxes that a family paid to support these services. The services Offered in Independence Township in 1957 differ little from those offered in l9hO. The schools are larger and their facilities have been improved. An addi- tional fire truck has been added; however, the force is still a voluntary one. The township has acquired a few water systems in some of the newer subdivisions; these are nothing more than central wells supplying an entire subdivision. Aside from these minor additions or improvements, services are basically the same now as in 1940. The taxes supporting them are not. On the basis of a constant dollar (using the consumer price index for all ser- vices, l9h7-h9, as a deflator) thelase per family is not spectacular, only $7h.l7 from $112.90 to $187.07 per average family. Individuals usually do not figure this way, however; they think in terms of $67.63 per average family in l9hO and $255.72 per average family in 1957. This is an increase of almost 300%, or a total of slightly under #00% of the taxes -109- paid in 1940. This is a considerable difference when in- flationary trends are not considered. The taxes per one thousand dollars of assessed valu- ation have also increased from $18.70 to $34.80, and this in terms of a 1947-49 dollar. This, too, is quite an increase and helps to explain why agricultural lands shift prematurely into speculators' hands. Assessments may be four to five times as high as pre-war and a tax rate which has doubled may serve to convince a farmer that agriculture in such an area, where taxes may have risen to as much as ten times their original pressure, is not feasible. The allocation of tax monies also has changed. In 1940, 15.47% of tax monies was allocated for township Operat- ing costs, 22.97% for the county, and 61.56% for schools. By 1957, the schools received 74.67% of the tax dollar, the county 16.78%, and the township only 8.55%. Schools had obviously become the major service which the township of- fered. A full breakdown of taxes, assessed valuation of the district, allocation, and load per family for the years 1940, 19443 1949, 1953 and 1957 is shown in Tables XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, and XIX. ~110— .00.a00 .aeAAoe 30a “00 M00.000 .aeAAoe menaemA “AV ”00000 mae.mA 050.00 00m.A0 mA£0GSOp aposoo 0aoo£00 0.0HA800 owwamb< = a = Op Uopwooaac R “a0AAod mzlmemAv 05.0Aw 00Ap03A0> 000AA0500 nom.waw :OApsfiAwb 00000000 000A@\00N09 = = = a = a a = = = a = a : q a a A com 000 0 :00 000 A aeAAoe mataqu :oApssA0> GOApmsAa> douAAssdm douAAssom QOA905A0> 00000000 0A.o00.me Aa.A00.a 00.00A.0 0a.A0e.m 00.0A0.AA 00.000.00 00.000.0A mm.Amo.om AdHHOQ me-aeaA h>0H N05 Ode ZOHBN.mqm¢ 00A.0ma.0 neAAoe meuaemA 00A905A0> 000AA050m 3 oa0.aA0.m oOApch0> 000AA050m : 00:.Noo.m GOApdsA0> 00000000 H>K mqm¢e 000.00 oAamczOp . . . Rod.ba mpafioo a z : 0A0.mm 0Aoon00 Op 00p000AA0 a 00.00:.ma ww.mha.ma a0.000.mA AW.0N0«NA NA.0:e.OA , 00.0810 00.000.AA 00.000.00 00.nmm.A 02.0a0.0 am.oow.mm 00.00Awmm 00.naA.0A A0HH00 metnemA m>0H N09 ddma ZOHB¢DBHm X09 00.000qu Am.oa0.mA h>0A x0» 30m AamAAO0 minudmAv 0A.Am& GOA903H0> 00NAA0300 Mom.mA$ COprsAse 00000000 oooaw\00a0e H0p0p 0:090 chp0a0ao mAnmn3oe AspOp p300 chpwammo hpcsoo A0pOp pn00 chpwaoao 0Aoo£om .mm.NmA9 a0AHo0 30a “09.:NA0 a0AAo0 mdlmdmA 0AAa0p 000p0>0 n09 00OH M09 000.:A 000.Am 000.00 0A000309 090500 0aoo£om 09 009000AA0 a An0AAO0 mdlmdmAv 00.0mw GOA903H0> 000AH0500 “0A.9Nw COA905A0> 00000000 OOOH&\00N09 -112— .. Amm.oam.e ssAAoe 0::aemA cOA902A0> 000AA0svm .. 0am.0ee.: oOA905A0> 000AA050m mAa.mam.e c0A90sA0> 0000000< mo.aAo.eAA 00.000.0A .WA.0NN.0A 00.0AA.mA nm.0en.MA a0.Amm.m 00.A00.m m0.aem.mm mm.mam.:m .0N.0aA A0.0NA mo.:aa.mm 00.000.00 00.500.0a 00.000.09 00.090.0A 00.900.00 0A.mm0.mA 0A.amm.mA 00.000.00 Ae.mam.0m a0AAo0 h>0A mauaemA 00» 300 9>0H N09 admfl ZOH94b9Hm K09 Hbe mdm<9 A0909 0C0am H0909 0000nocA 0090p wcA90n0ao QA£003o9 A0909 9900 moA90n0Qo 090000 H0909 0000000A 0090» 9900 00A90n0ao 0Aoo£om ~113- .0Hoo£om hpacsaaoo 00p0xa0ao Canvas no: 0pcanpma0 H0coapo0am 0005Hoqat .mH.mme :09 “NV ”00.:maw .n0HHoc mzlmdaa “Hy ”mHHE0w 0m0p0>0 h0m U00H x0e Ra.m 00.0H 00.00 Qa£0£309 hpnsoo 0Hoo£00 on o0p0ooaa0 m AA0HH00 mzlmdmav om.mmw soap0sa0> 00uaa0sv0 nom.mmm coap0sa0> 00000000 oooaw\00N0B 00HH00 mzamdma codp0za0> 000aa000m 000.000.0t «3 0 mm: :00 0 coap03H0> 000aH0svm mom.:ma.m: cedp0za0> 00000000 H0.0mm.0m~ oo~wm~.01: 00.H00.mm 00.000.00H :0.Hmmflm0 00.000.30 HGHHOU azunnma m>0H K09 mnma ZOHB¢DBHm N¢B HHH>N HAm¢B 20.00000 00.00:.mm 00.000.00H :0.mmm.mn wm.uww.ao hpoa N0» 300 H0p0p 0c0pm wcap0h0mo QH£0a3oe mndp000mo mpzsou H0p0p p906 wcap0n0mo 0Hoo£om ~11h— .0Hoonom 090058800 00P0M00Ho 00 p00 0poanpma0 H0000000nm 0000H000$ .Nm.mmmw 300 Amy "00.00H0 .00HH00 mdumima “av ”maaa0w 0m0h0>0 n09 000a N09 000.0 0000030» = = = Rmh.wH hpnfioo : = = 000.00 0H00000 0p 00p000HH0 0 A00H000 mzlmdmav 00.0mm :oap0sa0b 0000H0000 .om.m 0 000p00H0> 00000000 oooaw\00x0e = = = mm.dom.mmd H0p0p 0c0pm = = = .mw.bzzqmn1 mm.mmH.Hw H0pop a = = w0.mmm.mH 00.000.0H 00000000 0000» a = = 00.000.00 0H.0Hm.mm 000000000 maflmckoa 00.000.00 «0.000.000 H0000 = = = QW¢Hmwfimm mm.om¢+flm madpwn0fio .. .. .. 00000.0 00 .300 838000 03800 mpcsoo m:m.amm.ma* mmm.mma.nat m00.mm:.aat Hm.mmm.0mmt mm.ma:.uddt H000» a 0w.mo:.mwa om.0dm1©ww 00000000 00p0> . a . m:.nao.mm am.amm.am 9900 moo 0mm OH No.omn.mOH mm.m:m.H:H w0090a0m0 0H00£00 00HH00 00:0000 000000H0> 000000H0> naaaou h>0H 000p05a0> 00uda0svm 00000004 mdtméma x0e 30m 0000H000m m>0H N09 nmmH ZOHB4DBHm N06 KHN mqm¢e CHAPTER VI PROBLEM AREAS The delineation of problem areas is at best a sub- Jective process. What would appear to be undesirable to one individual may not appear so to another. With this implicit warning for bias in mind, the reader should examine the fol- lowing delineated areas and accept or reject them on the basis of the supporting statements role in validating the denotation of these areas as problem areas. Elgnning, Land Classification and Zoning A zoning ordinance is a tool of planning conceived as a method by which a master plan may be effectuated. If a zoning ordinance is adepted and mapped as the zoning ordinance in Independence Township has been, then it is only a stOp-gap measure and possibly a deleterious one. In the absence of a rational assessment of the future growth of an area. a classification of land based on expected growth, and a provision for serving that deve10pment with municipal services and a coordinated system of roads, the zoning ordinance is easily challenged. Changes in the mapped portion of a zoning ordinance such as this are common occur— rences, as the purposes of the mapped districts are often not -115... ~116— clearly thought out or based on a rational plan of action. variances, as mentioned, are usually changes of dis— trict boundaries rather than wavers of restriction within a district. The result is often a loosely connected develop— ment with gaps between deve10pments due to by-paseing land which was zoned for a use, but for some reason not developed. This pattern may be difficult to service with the necessary roads, utilities and supporting activities necessary to a community. Another problem is the inclusion of districts or land categories which are not reasonable. Such a classification, as “suburban farms," tends to be overworked in township zon- ing ordinances. The deve10pment of the area should be an- ‘ alyzed carefully to determine the land best suited for large parcels as required in a "suburban farms" district. A dis- trict which is overzoned, and is a low density or low inten- sity economic use, will often be rezoned into a more intensive use on the basis of a petition of a deve10per's pointing out the excess capacity for this use. To a degree this is Justi» fied, but the result, as mentioned above, is often haphazard and not consistent with the intent of the original mapped districts. A township such as Independence which finds itself be— coming a part of the limited rural-urban fringe should clas— sify its land according to its adaptability to the various economic alternatives possible. This means that topography, drainage, and transportation should be considered, that the -ll7- tax base supporting community facilities must be considered, that the market possibilities or economic use possibilities should be considered, and that the development of non—public supporting uses be considered. These factors must be con- sidered and integrated into a comprehensive plan for deve10p- ment which the zoning ordinance is designed to implement. If there is such a plan, the zoning ordinance is no longer a stOp-gap measure and defending it against changes becomes a more rational process providing more insurance that changes in the plan will be more thoroughly considered and their ef- fects on the whole plan will be analyzed. The problem of a useful zoning ordinance and plan is intensified or alleviated by the amount of available help which the township has in providing for its future. County planning agencies can play an important role in guiding these units. The county planning agency should be interested in coordinat— ing the planning programs of the local units as the sum of these programs is the heart of the county's deve10pment. The position of the county agency should enable it to at least disseminate information about the advisability of an integrated planning program, and informing local governmental units about the alternatives for professional guidance in the formulation of a plan which is available to them. If it does not do this, then it should feel delinquent in its duties. This would appear to be the case in Oakland County, at least, as it affects the northern townships which are feeling the pangs of urban encroachment. -118- Platting The approval of subdivision plate is a major problem area for Independence Township. Within its boundaries there . is considerable local relief in topography. This coupled with upland soils of a sandy or gravelly nature causes prob- lems in handling grading within subdivisions. The plat act allows local units to require information in excess of the required survey plat map if they feel this is warranted. At present t0pographic maps showing original t0pography and pro- posed changes are not required, nor is information about the stability of the soil concerning erodability and value for use as fill for a construction base. At one time only one or two percolation tests were required before septic tanks could be installed. However, the variation in permeability within a subdivision was found to be so great that the county health agency has required the taking of percolation tests at fin- ished grade for every septic tank in a subdivision. An example of the importance of topographic informa- tion and soil engineering qualities is Jack's Greens Lake Sub- division. TOpographic changes were made here, using soil cuts as fill for other parts of the subdivision. The northern boundary of the subdivision lies from 2 to 8 feet below the prOperty adjacent in a straight drop at finished grade. Soil cut from here was used as fill and built upon. The V.A. re~ quired piers to be used when construction was done on this un— compacted fill. One house built on piers solely on uncom- pacted fill has shifted three times. Open ditches were used -119- to dissipate surface runoff into a.tamarack swamp below the subdivision. These have in the Space of two years eroded, in places where gradients were steep ~ about 10 percent grade, to depths of 6 to 8 feet and are undermining the roads. (See Figure XXXI.) Why does this happen? The building inspector of Independence Township indicated that the evaluation of soil qualities and the effect of topographic changes is impossible for him to check. First, he has no information, and he re- lies on county agencies familiar with these problems to assess their import. This apparently is not done. The county road and drain commissions review the plate submitted. What they can do without topographic data and soils data is a question. The county drain commission was asked by the author for information about permeable and im- permeable soils in the county and was told that they had none. This lack of basic information to use in the review of plate heightens the problem. The county planning commission also gives a cursory review to plate and its director is aware of the problem. Concern with the problem appears to end here. No effort is made to acquaint township supervisors with the ad- vantages of obtaining information of this kind or the possi- bility of requiring this information from those platting preperty. Although the comment was made by the director of the commission that the townships with problems of this type did not have professional help from consultants or actually from the commission in reviewing their plate, interest in in- forming them of the value of obtaining professional help or O- ’3 0.. -l tandar d ole of , Sue—s .1- m- . L; 4.0-3.01, n F -h I - fin Fr) a ‘ ¢~\(.;-L one W L. 010 1 -121- cf assuming this role was seemingly absent. Lest it be thought that the culpability is the de— ve10pers, a circularity must be indicated; the developer, the engineer responsible for the plat, and governmental personnel associated with the platting process all share, to an inde— terminate degree, the blame. A builder very often may suffer from situations arising from this problem. Repairs may be necessitated because of settling or poor drainage. The build— ing inspector may refuse to issue occupancy permits for com— pleted, but vacant homes, until repairs are made on occupied units in the deve10pment. The home builder who often has his working capital tied up in the completed non-occupied homes, may not be able to effect repairs until he sells more, which he is forbidden (not allowed) to do and a circularity is es— tablished which is difficult to resolve. An example of this occurred in Independence Township. Jack's Greens Lake subdivision is built upon fill which was uncompacted and poorly graded for drainage; (Figure XXXII showing original contours and approximate finished eon— tours) damage to occupied units was sustained through excess runoff not draining properly and the uncompacted fill shifted, settling some houses unevenly. The process outlined above occurred and the circularity was established. Resolution of the problem is extremely difficult, and everybody concerned is hurt to some degree. Many times, of course, a project is sold out before this type of problem arises. If this happens, the problem is even more difficult to resolve and may involve 00050.00 03 .0000. 00d... 0.00% 0.00 0.00200 002.0 000 .3090 0.000005 0.00 00.000 050: Mo. 00956 0. 00:0 000: 00.? .300000000003 0.9.0.0 0:0 0000 3.000.000.0050 08000000000 05. mo 000.00 0800 :.0 0003.00.02 cam 00000>0H0 0 mg Panama ... , 0000 80 00.080. 0000 0 "00000 . 50.002 Ho 90005 1... _ .....v .1 0.500080 0000050 (s\&m\ll 700000 00500.6 It§0ll 9“ 0000000000 A 00.0 00.000 . .. 00000000 00 . ....000000000 90006 . I .000 0000 0.00000 0.0300 we 0.3000003. -123- resorting to the removal of V.A. and F.H.A. certification of the builder's future projects to effect repairs. The formal examination given to plate by the county planning agency tends to heighten another problem. This problem is the integration of platted land into a working unit. Much of the platting is done without consideration of the relation of one subdivision to another nor are standards accepted by city planners adhered to. An example of such a standard is limitation of "cul-de-sacs" in a subdivision to a 200 to 300 foot maximum length. This restriction is based on serving them with water, sewers and allowing fire fighting apparatus to reach the end of a "cul-de-sac.“ An example of a violation of this ”rule-of—thumb" is evident in Clarkston Ridge Estate Subdivision, in which the single access street is a cul-de-sac one-half mile in length. (See Figure XI.) This non—integration of plate also leads to the de- ve10pment of a street system which may overload access roads and not functionally serve residential areas. For an example of this see Figure XXXIII. Another problem associated with deve10pment concen— trated on section-line roads is the isolation of interior land which becomes extremely difficult to develop. For an example of this see Figure XXXIV. The control of platting is important; its importance was pointed out very well by Karl J. Belser who said, “...any- one with a piece of land that is zoned to permit subdivisions may at any time file a map for the subdivision of his land. Figure m1 1 1 ~12”- Poor Interior Circulation in slatted areas JL ———‘\\\\\"”////’il .______ .-.. ._ _ T The three shaded areas show sooriy designed integratinm of circulation. Q Persons desiring to to move from one location to another 'uithin an area adjacent to the shading to another ::3 on the next street [ may well choose to use the section line . main roads as means ~ of access. The , integration of the various subdivisioné,~s as they are slatted and deveioned is necessarv for the deveIOpment of an erficient pattern of {n+arn31 nirnu15+‘nn ! '\\ 1 Q!) t .WNV \xththhhhhfixfiVU A . . In... .IIIIIII‘ a _ . . I , I . I .. I I . I F I II IIIIK I y . IVIIIII _ . \V\V\§ r a . 'w v . . . . . . f. “05% 00 fl 6%. Mex. new Q. N .mfim\hss\emm. the . 2 . . V . . . . . .- _- _ é . E I .II J . x 0. . S. Uthw hhkbxxx mue\.mcm WEW%\ WWR . _ J . _ \L...a. ollJ. m . “NKM‘BN\“MH\IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII:|.J . \ . r . < i \x . . _ . . \\\.\ WNKUKWQY. . v. L\%t\uU%\ Q‘ . . . . .\\\n . . hwaW‘ \\\\ _ A I , . . ,. . . s “hang. .. (I’ll/Ll. ...Illlliili 955QOH0>0Q C , . c. 8 v . ~126— Thus...it is easy to understand the chaos and confusion that .results from the fact that subdivisions are not designed in relation to one another. The urban growth pattern does not extend itself in an orderly, contiguous manner, carrying with it related urban type services; rather, it has a leap- frog quality so that large open spaces are by-passed to reach cheaper land in a more outlying position. This produces either unserved areas or areas difficult to serve economic— ally with urban utilities.“19 I”Sub-standard“ Housing The 1930's and the period from 1942 to 1948 left a heritage of some poorly built, poorly maintained houses. It is a definite possibility that areas within the township which contain these may be retarded in development, and that the development which takes place may not be particularly de- sirable. This may in some cases eXplain why some subdivided land left from the 1920's has not deve10ped completely. An- other factor similar to this is the outside storage which is common in fringe areas. The combined sight of poorly-main- tained homes and ill-kept littered grounds tends to discour- age the individual considering building for himself who has an eye on property value and also the project builder who considers environment as fairly important in affecting 19Karl J. Belser, Director of Planning, Santa Clara County, California, in an address entitled 'Urbanism and the County," presented at the National Planning Conference, San Francisco, California, March 17-21, 1957. -127- salability of his homes. School Plant A problem which may be important in the future is the present rate of construction of physical school plant. AB pOp- ulation increases and a more normal distribution of ages is reached over a period of time, there is a strong possibility of having excess school plant. Some thought should be given to conversion to other uses when school buildings are designed and constructed. This approach has been used in the construc- tion of local public libraries in Detroit. The libraries are located on major or secondary thoroughfares bounding the neighborhood units which they serve. They are built in com- mercially zoned areas and the structures are simple shells which are easily converted into store Space for retail busi- ness. This approach merits attention in areas which will have a large pOpulation making feasible small neighborhood shopping centers. Premature Subdivision and Speculation It would appear from the data presented concerning per- centage of platted lots built upon, that premature subdividing is not a great problem as far as most present trends are con- cerned. The appearance on the scene of the deve10per-builder has eliminated to a great degree the mass platting of lots which occurred in the 1920's. However, the lots remaining from the 1920's are a problem. Some of the plate from the 1920's were poorly laid out. Many street patterns are not ~128- adapted to the topography of the sites. Lots are generally much smaller than the accepted minimums now common. Blocks are also small, and servicing such units would be costly. Many of the plate do not include easement for public utili- ties which tends to increase the difficulty of deveIOping them. The pattern of streets in many of them is frozen to a degree by the lots which have been deve10ped. In many cases the ownership of lots is unknown. Personnel in the Independ- ence Township Hall indicated that for some lots in Thendara Park Subdivision the person to whom a tax bill should be sent was unknown. Some properties are parts of estates which.have not been probated or are tied up in other litigation. In some cases the existence of "sub-standard" dwellings deters individuals and builders from purchasing prOperty for deve10p-J ment. If the situation does not change radically, it would appear that this pool of excess platted lots will be in exist- ence for some years to come. It is not possible to determine to what extent land is being bought for Speculative purposes. It is in all prob- ability safe to say that some is purchased for this purpose. Even if this is not the case, the high prices paid for agri~ cultural land for residential subdividing poses some questions. If land is bought for between $1500 and $2500 per acre, as is common in this area, what effect does this have on the timing and composition of future deve10pments? With the present minimum of 15,000 square feet per lot, a developer can expect to deve10p only slightly over two lots per acre from the raw -129- land, assuming all his lots will not front existing roads. He must also grade and pave roads and provide a water system for the subdivision. His land costs are relatively high. His deve10pment costs are relatively high and can in the future be higher as much of the land remaining has consider— able local relief. With high land costs and high property taxes, a developer may be forced into premature deve10pment of his prOperty. Or if his time preference is low, he may wait a longer period of time. In either case he may have three alternatives available for deve10pment. The first is high value residential deve10pment with homes selling from $30,000 upwards. This is one method of absorbing costs. The second is land develOpment without construction, 1.6. the selling of improved lots. This may not be a possibility if there is a reservoir of lots in the area or if the environ— ment of the plat does not enhance its esthetic values. His third alternative is the construction of low-cost housing. Very often this means the using of materials which are cheap, but presentable, when built. His choice of the three would depend on the market in the area for the good involved. In Independence Township the third alternative would probably be the most feasible. It is impossible to say Just what the effects of high land costs in advance of imminent deve10pment are, but there is little doubt that they affect timing and quality of future residential deve10pment. Township_8ervices The township does not provide many services beyond -130— those mentioned in the tax section. In outline form, these are the community facilities and services provided within the township: 1. Fire Protection a. Two fire stations - one at the corner of the Clarkston-Orion Road and Sashabaw and the other at East Church and M—lS in Clarkston. b. Equipment 1) two pumpers 2) one tanker 3) one power wagon a) one Model-T pumper c. Personnel - entirely volunteer; no full-time personnel are employed. Police protection consists of three or four elected constables; there are no salaried policemen. The Township depends on the County Sheriff's Department for police protection. Road maintenance - The township has two trucks equipped with blades for snow removal. The County Road Com— mission maintains other roads. Library ~ A small library is supported by contribu- tions; no tax money is allocated to it. Lakeview Cemetery is supported by tax money and Oper- ated by the Township. The Township hall and the offices of the supervisor, building inspector, township clerk, and treasurer are maintained by tax money. -131- This is not a very impressive list of services. Street lighting and sidewalks if established would be paid for by special assessments against the subdivision in which they are installed. Further pepulation growth would almost certainly bring with it pressure for additional services beyond those provided and necessitate the intensification of those which are maine tained. This would aggravate further the tax load on the in- dividual prOperty owner. Most of the people moving into areas such as Independ- ence are accustomed to many more services than the Township provides. While the Township is still a semi-rural fringe area, this lack of services may be compensated for by low densities and much open land. The problem will be very im- portant after the area has changed into a definite suburban enclave, and many of the esthetic values are decreased. Supporting facilities associated with urban development The pepulation in Independence Township is not served very well with the commercial and business facilities associ— ated with urban deve10pment. The Clarkston Shepping area is small (only two blocks long on one street, part of which is occupied by a post office, a car dealer, and a hotel). Busi- nessmen in Clarkston do not appear to be disposed towards eXpanding the deve10pment, and most residents of the Township shOp in Pontiac, either downtown or at the Tale—Huron Shopping Center on the U.S.lO—U.S.24_mwhpass around Pontiac. This -132- shepping center is from 8 to 12 miles away depending on where one lives in the Township. The commercial development on U.S. 10 is a strip de- ve10pment aimed at a tourist market. U.S. 10 is a main route north from Detroit to Flint, Saginaw, Bay City and beyond. Its connection with U.S. 24 at Pontiac funnels much of the traffic from Ohio into it also. It is also an important truck route as it links the cities previously mentioned. The deve10pment is a hodge-podge mixture with gasoline stations, drive-ins, and motels dominating the scene. (See Figure XXXV.) Further south in Waterford Township bait sheps and sports sheps are plentiful. The area is one of many fine lakes and is easily reached from Detroit. The deve10pment of supporting business is necessary to insure a balanced community and to serve efficiently the pepulation centered in the area. U.S. 10 is a heavily trav- eled, congested highway; the funneling of traffic onto it from the townships through which it passes aggravated the condition. As long as residents of the area must travel to Pontiac to shop, this will continue. Geological and Topographic Limitations on Land Use The local relief in some parts of the township is se- vere. This may not prove a limitation if luxury deve10pments can be encouraged. Large lots would be necessary to provide sites for homes. If this cannot be deve10ped this way, orv«- -\ fi J4"-’€‘i ",‘i‘.rr'lf.t (”.T. tie '. 101‘? 11.1; _‘_ ,I 81.3 o'b :,.._‘.,._‘ _,_—- Il“"\' 51.0.1 'J‘ J .—_—.~—-———~ "‘“Cl —9—-————-—-—-__ . ..J .1 ( . motel __.....__/7::> trout noni reSidence IQSIJPHCQ gas station restaurant auto sales restaurant gas station __.“-. . wee-“w...“ +__«_._-i- l‘h}: _L -~— -_MJ 1 I [3, "' x45 .5. ..- residence gas station vacant commercial gas station reSidence in tern market .... -reciiewca cabinet satin; If? S 1'30 ECG newspaper and s? Driit 10p medical Center P '. - r reed store 3d ‘3 station rec steerant ‘ 4- ~ lestiuraht \ : fih‘f ppnling . , .rn n.r