In 1969, Richard H. Austin's attempt to become the first African American mayor of Detroit narrowly failed when he was defeated by Roman Gribbs, 50.42-49.21%. http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=263584 (Gribbs was to be the last white mayor of Detroit until Mike Duggan was elected in 2013; Austin went on to be elected Michigan Secretary of State in 1970, an office he held until he was defeated for re-election in 1994. )
Suppose Austin had won in 1969. He might easily have won re-election time after time the way Coleman Young did in OTL. (As in OTL, he might run for the Senate as he did in 1976, but as in OTL he would probably lose the Democratic nomination to Don Riegle. Since mayoral races were held in 1969, 1973, 1977, etc., he could run for Senate or any other statewide office without leaving the mayoralty--unless of course he won.) If he does keep on getting re-elected that means no Coleman Young mayoralty of Detroit. Presumably this means a less flamboyant, less racially divisive, and less corrupt administration. But would Detroit be that much better off, or were its problems too structural for a different mayor to make much difference?
(BTW, Young is not without his defenders: see http://www.deadlinedetroit.com/arti...n_t_confronted_white_people_with_their_racism "On Sunday, in its magisterial examination of Detroit’s financial history, Free Press reporters John Gallagher and Nathan Bomey wrote that Young might have been divisive, but he was fiscally sound, “reducing the workforce, department budgets and debt during a particularly nasty national recession in the early 1980s.” They also wrote: “Young was the only Detroit mayor since 1950 to preside over a city with more income than debt, although he relied too heavily on tax increases to pay for services.” That’s quite a report card for the mayor who is often castigated as the one person who did more to ruin Detroit than anyone else.")
Suppose Austin had won in 1969. He might easily have won re-election time after time the way Coleman Young did in OTL. (As in OTL, he might run for the Senate as he did in 1976, but as in OTL he would probably lose the Democratic nomination to Don Riegle. Since mayoral races were held in 1969, 1973, 1977, etc., he could run for Senate or any other statewide office without leaving the mayoralty--unless of course he won.) If he does keep on getting re-elected that means no Coleman Young mayoralty of Detroit. Presumably this means a less flamboyant, less racially divisive, and less corrupt administration. But would Detroit be that much better off, or were its problems too structural for a different mayor to make much difference?
(BTW, Young is not without his defenders: see http://www.deadlinedetroit.com/arti...n_t_confronted_white_people_with_their_racism "On Sunday, in its magisterial examination of Detroit’s financial history, Free Press reporters John Gallagher and Nathan Bomey wrote that Young might have been divisive, but he was fiscally sound, “reducing the workforce, department budgets and debt during a particularly nasty national recession in the early 1980s.” They also wrote: “Young was the only Detroit mayor since 1950 to preside over a city with more income than debt, although he relied too heavily on tax increases to pay for services.” That’s quite a report card for the mayor who is often castigated as the one person who did more to ruin Detroit than anyone else.")