Bulldoze Detroit?
 

This is just to odd to pass up.


Detroit wants to save itself by shrinking

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100308/...sizing_detroit

Well Ralphy, you ought to know what a good plan this is...look what Sherman did for Atlanta.

:p

Jamo,
Just when you think you have heard and seen everything in life, wow! Times have changed the world changes.

The Midwest as a whole is in a major slump. My roots are from the Midwest. The Southeast has grabbed the golden ring of fortune for now.

Ralphy

Burn, bulldoze, what ever as long as we rebuild with American lumber(preferably from Oregon)\

Scott S

Not a single person from Michigan, that figures.

:LOL:

Chicago seems to be treading down this same path.

We already have laws that let us tear down abandoned buildings quickly if they are deemed hazards to the neighborhoods. The trouble with 'tear down' policies is that it is often the nicest, or at least the most architecturally interesting buildings that get bulldozed. With all of the big contractors and cheap labor in the inner city, I've never understood why these nice old Victorian mansions and rowhouses couldn't be moved? Concentrated into new neighborhoods, maybe replacing other, less 'worthy' structures? What happens is all the good stuff whose only sin is being in the wrong neighborhood gets demolished and the new and banal gets built today by developers who are only looking to cut costs and build the cheapest box they can get away with.

The article doesn't go into how they'd handle existing streets, sewer lines, alleys, sidewalks, easements and the like. Would a farmer want a leaking sewer line under his fields? How about buried gas lines? I've been to Detroit, I don't really think there's a screaming need for a few hundred more acres of farmland near there, especially with all the legal entanglements and environmental issues that would be attached.

In Detroit, the residents drove the manufactureres out with their (employee) costs. In Chicago, we had the mayor change the State Constitution so that businesses paid property taxes at twice the rate as residents...result? Businesses aren't run by stupid people so businesses have been leaving the City and County for the collar suburbs, where taxes are fairer. The jobs are moving away from the City.

In a global economy, costs matter. In Detroit, in Chicago where even the railroads are rerouting around the City, and I'm wondering what will happen to St. Louis now that the local giant brewery has been sold overseas.

Seems to be the best solution for a good portion of New Orleans as well.

Yep, I'd say about 85% of Naw Leans would be a good start!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:LOL::LOL::cool::cool:

David

it is the same story from town to town across the country, the taxes force viable businesses out of town and after a few years the only residents left living there are too poor to move out and preso-chango you have a new ghetto. property values plummet,
crime soars. trouble is local governments don't seem to be accountable for the destruction of their own neighborhoods.
one example as i am sure there are many, is my mother-in-law lives in a row home in town. its footprint is 20x20 feet no yard, 20x20 is the property. she pays twice the taxes i do and i have 2 acres, stone home and a commercial building. we live 15 minutes away in the same county. fair? no.......stupid, yes.......difference is business has ran fast from her city.......but business' are treated fairly and have the same tax base as a residence where i am.....plain as day to me, the solution is quite simple. cut the taxes and lower budget. imagine that, living within your means.
as so concludes my rant..

fred

So far, so good on keeping this thing apolitical...but just barely. ;)

This bulldozing idea, evidently Cleveland has similar thoughts, what do they mean? Bulldozing ramshackle houses wouldn't seem to solve anything. Wouldn't the entire infrastructure have to be removed? Gas lines, water, sewage, roads, road beds, electrical, ALL would have to go or eventually pipes would fail, leaking gas or water or sewage. How to pay for a return to nature?? And after all the bulldozing and up-digging, do we then have to do plantings to prevent erosion and flooding? A quandary!

Dan40

You made me think a little more about the cost of this major remodel. The local utilities would save a large sum of money over the years. So it would seem appropriate to pass some of the costs to them.

As far as plantings, the article talks of selling these areas, so I would assume the buyer would do the improvements.

The article caught my attention because I have never heard of a major contraction of any city in the US. This surely would be something written in history books. I find it sad for America that we would need to do such a thing. However on the surface it seems financially sound.

A good number of people live in those areas because that is what they can afford. What will end up happening is you will move someone to a neighborhood that they cannot afford which will have to then be subsidized. Those new subsidized neighborhoods will suffer the same fate as the existing ones over time, because nothing changed. Nice neighborhoods were subsidized and over the years fell into disrepair. I fully believe that when someone is given something, they have less concern for the state of it than when they had to work hard to get it.

Hopefully this isn`t too far off topic , but I had a friend who was in Cuba when Castro took over and decided that the people would get free water instead of paying for it . According to my friend , people would go to work in the morning and leave the water running all day so it would be cold when they got home .... after all , it was free . The demand on the water systems was horrendous and the Government started charging for water again . Pretty much what Joe Wicked said would happen actually did .

And the next time you would read about these costs "passed" on to the utility companies would be in an obscure extra charge on YOUR utility bill!

They would RELISH the savings and pass along the charges. But you knew that!

I think it would be a great idea - in fact I can think of quite few cities that should be bulldozed, some in Northern California even - as in Oakland.

...

It does not seem all that different than ghost towns of the past, when the mining ran out. The least costly thing should be to let nature take care of the manmade structures. I think the city should just pull the zoning laws back and allow a semi-rural setting.

Maybe offer the land, as is, to surrounding housing or whoever will pay a minimal tax in a re-homesteading bargain. If a resident wants to live in the middle of a ghost town, so be it. If they want to raze the structures and raise apples and chickens, more power to them.

The last thing I want to see is this quote from the article:
"Hundreds of millions of federal dollars will be needed to buy land, raze buildings and relocate residents, since this financially desperate city does not have the means to do it on its own."

I don't want to pay for bulldozing cities. Maybe it would be better if my grandchildren could visit these "ghost towns" and see what America once was.

Wes

...

I say bulldoze these areas completely, plant a lot of coconut and banana trees and put up a bunch of nice, small, colourful houses. Lay off 80% of the police force, allow the rest to stop and have a beer with the citizens at the sidewalk rum shops and under no circumstances allow them to interfere with motorists going about their business and having fun.
There are thousands of us here in the islands who would enrich your culture by emigrating if y'all would just fix the place up a bit.

You like frozen dead Coconut and Banana trees?? Strange!!:confused::D

Banana coladas! Don't forget the rum!!