This continued argument of liberal/conservative run cities is such intellectual dishonesty. It presupposes facts that one cannot possibly prove (for example, that no Republican law/agenda would have any impact on a specific city and vice-versa).
Cities like Chicago have significant problems, but so did NY years ago. Some of that was directly impacted by a Mayor who installed more police (and more police power) but also because the federal government had set aside money for more police.
Detroit's problems have more to do with the longstanding employment issues associated with the cities main source of employment (a failed industry). Many mill towns have the same issues, with much less size.
You are partially correct here. Sure, they had to do something to get things under control (even though they are slipping back a tad). But my question is what led to things getting out of control in the first place, not so much what to do once they have gotten out of control. Yes, not so much Left/Right led cities as much as Left/Right policies having a much exagerated effect in the larger cities which generally have Left leadership and more people dependent on Left-leaning policies.
The Left may be well-intentioned but had no recourse once things became obvious about the lack of self-esteem and dependency, and the breakup of the family. They doubled down with more of these programs. Sometimes it is very hard to admit you are wrong or even that your good intentions had the wrong effect. Doesn't mean that things cannot change. I am always optomistic that we can get people to have a sense of self-worth and respect others again.