OT: Bulldoze 1/4 of Detroit?
Any chance the Detroit Free Press will be part of the demolition?
"Detroit, the very symbol of American industrial might for most of the 20th century, is drawing up a radical renewal plan that calls for turning large swaths of this now-blighted, rusted-out city back into the fields and farmland that existed before the automobile.
Operating on a scale never before attempted in this country, the city would demolish houses in some of the most desolate sections of Detroit and move residents into stronger neighborhoods. Roughly a quarter of the 139-square-mile city could go from urban to semi-rural."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100308/ap_on_bi_ge/us_downsizing_detroit
Would be safer. A condensed area for police to have to patrol on a regular basis is better.
I absolutely love this idea...Urban farming is a great way for inner city residents to take an active role in the growing and harvesting of food to help with the war on hunger. Detroit is in need of radical changes and this would be a great start...
Maybe the residents should focus on getting their kids through high school before they start farming.
they're going to be too damn tired to get into trouble.
Of course they'll be too damn tired to study either.
Do it.... Do it.... Do it....
This is a very different approach but I think one that is necessary if Detroit is ever to make a comeback.
Why stop at 1/4?
I'm surprised the hippies and Sierra club types haven't made this a huge campaign and got behind it. It's sustainable living. You'd think people would respond better to it.
Forcing people out of their homes is a 3rd rail. Almost everybody wants this, they just don't want to paint themselves into a political corner by admitting it. I'm sure they are greasing some wheels behing the scenes, however.
I know that Flint was considering something along these lines a few years ago, but I have no idea how it progressed. I do remember that there was alot of controversy because part of the goal was to exercise eminent domain to remove/move people who were highly isolated in decaying neighborhoods. While the city was going to save on services (police, fire, water, utilities) by handling a smaller area, many longtime residents didn't want to move from their traditional homes.
That is the only real hangup but sometimes we as a society must move forward (not trying to be harsh here) even if a few people may end up in a worse position.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
They wouldn't be. They'd be in a better position. They just don't realize it.
can be a very difficult thing ( see Michigan Football last two years ).
While you may be correct that people will be better off in the long run, it's tough to give up what they've known, in exchange for the unknown. Remember, too, that for older people, the long run may never get here, they have to think short term.
Baldbill is a commie!
[/sarcastic yelling]
I had to +1 you just cause you made me laugh at work.
I found the article, if anyone's looking for information on the Flint plan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/business/22flint.html?_r=1
It's something that needs to happen. Hopefully some type of private investment can be attracted to the bulldozed areas.
Just EPIC
Lots of boaters in the ghetto.
Yeah, I noticed that as well. 50-60 years ago, these neighborhoods were populated by middle-class families. It's crazy to see how much decay can take place in such a short period of time.
Looks like a real life version of half life 2.
There seems to be a lot of boats in the ghetto. Looks like a post-apocalyptic wasteland seen in a video game.
I have to give those kids credit. I wouldn't drive through that area, especially at night.
While this seems like a great idea, there's a few problems:
1. Telling people to move out of their homes and move somewhere else, especially in Detroit (where Eminent Domain has had a pretty mixed/racist history), doesn't always go over well.
2. Urban farming seems like a great idea, but in many neighborhoods and newly-cleared areas, industrial contaminates in the soil make farming impossible. Detroit is an environmental wasteland in a lot of places.
It is true that Detroit is far larger geographically than its population would warrant, and it's been like that for decades (more single-family homes, less high-density multi-unit dwellings), and it seems like a great idea to consolidate, but for right now, it's an idea. And likely no more than that.
1. Telling people to move out of their homes and move somewhere else, especially in Detroit (where Eminent Domain has had a pretty mixed/racist history), doesn't always go over well.There's a reason David Bing is the one able to push forward on this.
Doesn't matter if it's Dave Bing. Detroiters have long had an aversion to Eminent Domain, going back to efforts to move minorities using it in the 50's, its use to help clear out Paradise Valley and Black Bottom to build freeways, and the entire neighborhood of Poletown being bulldozed for a GM plant in 1981.
Detroit residents get understandably touchy when this kind of thing gets brought up because it's been so misused in such a selective way in the past.
I'm not arguing the history with you. I'm just saying that Dave Bing is the kind of person that can sell this and get it started. Besides, I'm pretty sure with HUD money and other fed gov programs they should be able to make it worth people's effort to move.
I agree that Detroiters have been hesitant to use eminent domain in the past, but this situation is a bit different. The Poletown neighborhood was decently vibrant, with a strong sense of community. Most of the homes had longstanding residents who contributed to the tax base.
In this case, the areas in question are extremely blighted and it is doubtful that many homes are in good property tax standing. Because this plan is federally funded, I imagine the compensation given to displaced residents will be relatively generous.
Even if they can't farm it, large field of grass / trees are an improvement. I like the idea.
Frankly, it's not even about bulldozing 1/4 of the city....most of the downsizable areas are mostly bulldozed and empty anyway.
This is partly true, but there are estimated to be more than 30,000 vacant homes in the city.
I always liked what happened to Chicago after the great fire...
The city needs to look at selling off the large parcels of empty land to develops at $1. If successful in attracting new residential development, it would be a good long-term decision to build the city's tax base.
The problem is that there is no need for residential development until there are jobs. It's kind of chicken and egg, but there already is massive overcapacity in residential in the Detroit metro area.
Selling off the land for $1 is a good idea though.
Young professionals in contrast with the baby boomers have been flocking to urban areas. D.C. is a great example. There's an over-capacity, but bringing young, well-educated professionals into the city may be a catalyst for bringing commercial opportunities into the city. You are entirely correct on there existing an over-capacity in the area, but if I were the city, I wouldn't care about cannibalizing the population of the suburbs.
Seriously.
The yuppie crowd already has a home in Royal Oak. You'd have to do a lot of convincing to get them to move to the D.
Right now, there's no way that you'd attract that sort of person to Detroit, even if you built it up. Look at the area downtown that's been built up nicely and heavily policed, its still pretty vacant.
Until Detroit reinvents itself as something other than the symbol of urban decay, you're not going to get many college grads with good professional jobs to live there.
Detroit: At least its not Cleveland.
They did that in Baltimore in the late 70s early 80s and it worked well.
Twitchy double posting fingers today.
Unfortunately, the way the surrounding cities are governed (particularly the zoning) it will do nothing to stop the endless urban sprawl. Successful cites usually have both geographic restrictions, as well as the political will to limit the amount of urban dilution (strict zoning regulations, incentives, mass transit investment); Metro detroit has a river to the south, but the will power of a heroin addict.
This is only a good thing. This would be one of the first legitimate efforts I can remember to reduce blight and urban sprawl.
First, condensing the populous saves big time on government spending. That means where people live, though a little more crowded, is a much nicer place. Improved education. Better roads. Better Police and Fire. Better EMS. Better Community.
Second, densified areas are more resistant to crime, vandalism, and homelessness, since it is easier to coordinate community watches, shelters, after school programs, etcetera. This means higher quality of life, a more productive economy (more JOBS!), and higher property values. People being moved from rotted out homes to nicely maintained, if smaller, apartments might find in a couple of years that their new homes are worth quite a bit.
I seriously hope they can get it done!
I also ask this: If these areas are bulldozed and cleared of human habitation (well, in legal homes...), how does it automatically mean they will no longer need to use city services?
Seems to me that these areas would become easy squatting territories for the homeless (Detroit is a city with, according to some estimates, some 25,000 homeless people, probably more), and largely unsupervised tracts for crime and other nefarious activities.
Now, that's not to say that these things don't already exist in higher instances in remote/desolate areas of the city, but clearing them out with the intention of concentrating Police/Fire/etc. in more densely-habitated areas seems problematic at best. Not to mention the fact that bulk trash pickup (which we take for granted in many places) has been strongly curtailed in Detroit in recent years, so it's also a pretty safe bet that those areas will become de facto trash dumps.
All in all, this is not the cut-and-dry easy fix so many are making it out to be.
Squatters and people living on land illegally get water, sewer, education, etc?
Not to mention that the homeless tend to prefer living where there are people to beg from. I haven't heard of any big homeless cities in the desolation along Route 66.
If there were a homeless hooverville on the expanses of empty land, at least it would be avoidable.
Now, that's not to say that these things don't already exist in higher instances in remote/desolate areas of the city, but clearing them out with the intention of concentrating Police/Fire/etc. in more densely-habitated areas seems problematic at best.No. It's BETTER at WORST. And that's what matters. The bulldozed areas, while in transition, will clearly be no-fly zones for people. This will make patrolling easy, and anyone there at night is suspect. Plus, don't need fire coverage on empty dirt lots. Maybe a touch more police (which should be easier if they can consolidate the other areas police have to more actively patrol), but no other services really.
Does Dorsey patrol the "no-fly" zone?
What Shock said. Urban blight enables crime because there are large tracts of buildings that are empty unsupervised and out of the public eye. The privacy and concealment generated by abandonment is what enables crime. Those advantages disappear when you raze a tract of land down to the dirt. Hiding drugs, guns and money is easy in a building. It's fairly obvious on a flat piece of land.
When I visited my sister in Athens, GA if was surprised to learn there is an area called "Bumtown" where homeless, derelicts, and drug addicts have setup a small tent city outside of town. It's warm there and apparently it's a phenomenon in warmer climates. I can't see this happening in places where it is subzero at times.
This is good as long as people leave willingly. I don't ever support forcing people out of there homes using emminent domain and think that Kelo v New London was despicable.
They do get PAID for them, you know. Most of these people couldn't sell these homes to save their lives, but it still might appraise at 20 or 30K, which the government would have to pay them.
When the government uses eminent domain it doesn't mean that people are willing sellers. It just means they have no choice.