Fred Durhal III
Despite Damning Report, Durhal Suggests Expanding DDA Tax Captures
Summary: Fred Durhal III's response to a 2024 Citizens Research Council report on Detroit's Downtown Development Authority (DDA) has been criticized for dismissing key findings. Despite the report showing downtown Detroit lost 66% of its jobs under the DDA's nearly 50-year operation and concluding that downtown investments "have not lifted the city to share in any levels of prosperity," Durhal claimed it was "too soon to consider ending the DDA." Even more controversially, he advocated for expanding the same tax capture mechanisms identified as problematic in the report, which diverted $65 million in 2023 alone, including significant funding from public schools and libraries over the past decade.
Details
Durhal's public response to the 2024 Citizens Research Council of Michigan report on Detroit's Downtown Development Authority (DDA) has drawn criticism for disregarding or failing to engage with the report's key findings. In direct response to a report showing downtown Detroit lost approximately 66% of its jobs under the DDA (dropping from 105,000 to 35,700 positions),[1] Durhal paradoxically claimed "it takes multiple decades to see what that impact was," despite the DDA having operated for nearly 50 years.[2]
When confronted with the report's explicit conclusion that "investments in the downtown have not lifted the city to share in any levels of prosperity,"[1] Durhal instead asserted that downtown had become "more vibrant," offering no data to counter the report's findings.[2] His response appeared to ignore documented evidence that the DDA diverted $65 million in tax revenue in 2023 alone, including significant funding from public schools ($83 million) and libraries ($22 million) over the past decade.[2]
Most notably, after being presented with a comprehensive report recommending the eventual end of tax captures that "have ballooned over the years", Durhal declared it was "too soon to consider ending the DDA."[2] This response suggested either a failure to engage with the report's detailed evidence or a deliberate dismissal of its findings. The contradiction became particularly apparent when Durhal advocated for expanding the same tax capture mechanisms that the report identified as problematic, while failing to address any of the specific concerns raised about their effectiveness and impact on city services.[2]