US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive

That’s a big IF.

Personally, as an occupant of an area that is a candidate for this treatment I have to ask again where does the money for this come from? IF a state or the Federal government is willing to provide grants, fine, but the cities in question are broke, how are they going to pay for this?

Around here, abandoned houses have been stripped of usable metal already. Seriously, scavengers knock big holes in the walls, floors, and ceiling, rip out the wires and pipes, and sell them for scrap. I was painting a house still wood-clad in Gary last summer when the house next to it - inhabited and well maintained - had the aluminum siding on it stolen in broad daylight. I’ve also seen inhabited homes where thieves have stolen aluminum gutters. Hell, there have been people in this area electrocuted while trying to steal the wiring out of street lights. Trust me, those buildings are already stripped.

With what money? Those with the means have already fled such depleted neighborhoods. Those that remain, their greatest asset is typically their house/land - and that has lost tremendous value. Eminent domain is typically market value - which is crap in such areas. This will not leave these people with enough money to purchase another home unless here are heavy grants and subsidies… and where will that money come from? What about renters in these distressed neighborhood, who have no equity, and who likely have been unable to find housing elsewhere?

I don’t think it’s always a fear of change. I think that some people don’t want to lose the one object of value they still own (house/land). I think some people don’t have the money to buy another house elsewhere, or to pony up the necessary rent+security deposit to obtain new housing in a better neighborhood. I think elderly and disabled people have genuine problems moving under any circumstances and I fear there will be no help for them.

You also mention bias in better neighborhoods towards those coming from bad neighborhoods and it certainly exists - I have no idea how to get rid of it, though.

That’s going to do jack for the disabled or the 80 year old who needs a walker. That sort of work requires physical strength and stamina.

Indeed. I am being selfish and short-sighted contemplating having to move suddenly because the entire block I live on is about to be demolished. I have been only intermittently employed for nearly two years. I have no cash reserves. Of the ten able-bodied adults in my family all but three of us have lost our full-time work in the past two years, and only four of that group have any employment at all at this point so I can not ask my relatives for help as THEY are all on the ropes financially right now, or paying someone else’s rent to keep that person and family from being evicted. I do not have the money to pay for professional movers. My spouse is disabled and unable to lift and move boxes. He would be able to pack some of the lighter objects, but at least half of what we own is beyond what he can manage. I can not munster sufficient funds for a month’s rent and security deposit to rent elsewhere. Even if I could, paying monthly rent is questionable at this point (my current landlord allows me to exchange labor for a portion of the rent when I come up short. I am unlikely to find another such arrangement).

An order for us to leave our current residence in order to “restore the neighborhood to nature” would be an unmitigated disaster for us. We would almost certainly lose the bulk of what possessions we still have. There is a high probability that we would either be in a homeless shelter or living in our vehicles (they’re paid for, we’d just have to find a place to park at night where we wouldn’t get towed). We would lose our garden, which is currently supplying a significant portion of what we eat every week, thereby increasing our food bill significantly - if we even still had a kitchen at that point. Most probably, we wouldn’t wind up in another “condensed” city neighborhood, we’d wind up living in my sister’s garage in Buffalo (other portions of her house already being occupied by hard luck relatives at this point).

Unless, of course, our move to that new neighborhood in the city was somehow assisted - assisted with help in getting new quarters, in the monetary costs of that and moving, and in physical assistance in moving such basic objects as our bed, which is too heavy for me to do alone and which my spouse can not help me with due to disability. Who is going to do that, and who is going to pay for it? Honestly, I would love to see some of the shitboxes around here torn down and I would love to get a nicer place to live where the roof doesn’t leak and broken windows are replaced with glass instead of boarded up, but not at the cost of being rendered homeless. The frightening thing is that we are NOT the worst off around here, we are NOT the poorest family on the block here. The neighbor behind me has cancer and is so ill he can barely walk without assistance - who would help HIM move? The house next door has been subdivided into rental units, and there are people living 3 or 4 in a room over there because that’s all they can afford.

If there isn’t help in moving the people currently in those last hold-out buildings you WILL be causing great harm to a significant portion of those people, many of whom are trapped there by poverty. Yeah, I’ve got friends who would probably help me. I could go live with my sister (who, again, has already taken in relatives). I’d still lose most of what I have as there would not be room for it were I to move in with Sis. I have neighbors who would not be so fortunate as that. Or did you think the people living in these places are middle-class? They might have been, at one time - they aren’t now. If they were, they would have left already.

If we give North Korea a bit of a tech boost, maybe we can get them to nuke Flint.

Pretty much. Real native restoration is a lengthy and expensive process. I’ve seen Army Corp of Engineer projects which involved excavating soil down to 10-12’ in contaminated urban areas and importing all fresh fill before they start trying to grow native prairie & trees. I’m not talking about nuclear death factories or anything but contamination from gas stations and things like that. Growing native plants involves a lot of intensive work as well over a period of years to make sure that it’s not choked out by invasive plant species, possibly controlled burns for prairie areas and more.

I seriously doubt Flint would have the money to do it right. They’d probably knock some shit down, haul off the biggest pieces, throw a couple inches of dirt on it and call it done.

No, no it wouldn’t.

In the NYTimes article about the Flint proposal, the city commissioner said that if the ONLY change they made was not sending garbage trucks to blocks with only one resident, they would save $100,000 the first year. Multiply that by every city service (water, electric, sewer, police, fire, ambulance…) and it doesn’t make financial sense not to do it.

In a world where you are allowed to use eminent domain to put up a Shitty Wok, I don’t see how using it to consolidate space in urban areas would be too much of a stretch.

Yeah, but unless someone slows down and makes arrangements for people in situations such as Broomstick described, it’ll add a level of suck to the whole situation that is not deserved. I hate to sink to the level of spin-meistering, but is there not a way to portray this as rejuvenation, not just casting off the unwanted?

It occurs to me that the city - despite their property taxes - does not provide my building with water (we depend on a well), with sewer (we have a septic tank and field), or with garbage removal (my landlord pays a private company to pick it up. I also know some of my neighbors sneak their garbage into our dumpster. As long as it doesn’t get excessive we tolerate it, as the alternative would be their garbage piling up in the alley out back). Nor does the city provide police protection to us - if we call 911 we get the county sheriff. Don’t know about ambulance, have fortunately not had need for one. No street lights. Nonetheless - the city still collects property taxes from us! Or rather, from the landlord, who pays them out of the rent money he collects. We pay taxes and get NOTHING.

Well, OK, we do have a paved road out front and sometimes they plow it in winter.

Seems to me they already “save” a lot of money but ignoring us. I can only hope that if Gary adopts this idea that they continue to ignore my block because, as I said, I don’t really have the resources to move elsewhere right now.

My commentary was in response to the article about Flint. In the article it says this:

[quote]
Flint’s recovery efforts have been helped by a new state law passed a few years ago which allowed local governments to buy up empty properties very cheaply.

They could then knock them down or sell them on to owners who will occupy them.

Presumably much of the financial issues you highlight would be factored into this. People evicted in neighborhoods to be razed are losing essentially nothing. Those homes in those neighborhoods have essentially no value and no equity. If the city/state is able to relocate them into properties owned by the city at rock bottom prices they will essentially be getting something for nothing and the cost to the city should be low as it seems they already own most of these properties. Laws obviously would need to be crafted to establish the new residents ownership status on the new property, presumably giving them the relative equity of the home razed in the new property and determining how much they’d have to pay each month to buy it from the state or if they chose to live in public housing. It’s not simple and it might have to be a case-by-case situation, but I don’t think the linked proposal presumes to evict people without planning for the fallout.

Ideally moving people to better neighborhoods would save money for the city, money which would be redirected to paying for them to be moved and boarded.

Also, the article notes that much of this is directed by the Federal Government and most of the costs to a city like Flint could be part of a Federal Stimulus package.

There’s no question that the plan has massive hurdles and it needs to be done compassionately and prudently. It will be a challenge for the people and the city, but the current situation is untenable. Sad to say that if the city is going bankrupt that’s a bigger issue than the poor, non-working people that will have to end up on some type of aid or leave. Creative destruction if you will. It might suck, but the cities can’t have the unproductive neighborhoods dragging down the productive ones if it can be avoided.

I disagree - while there may not be a dollar amount for equity it still have value because (assuming the building is sound) it is a place to live. And telling people in these neighborhoods who may have paid off their homes years ago that something they have been forced to pay property taxes based on “market rate” for decades now has “no value” is not going to sit well. If it has “no value” then why was the resident taxed on the assumption the building and lot were $50,000 or $100,000 or whatever the city assessed it at? It’s worth something if they city can collect taxes but otherwise worth zero? You don’t see an issue there?

IF! “If” again!

So - take someone who paid off their mortgage years ago, has been taxed on the property as if it’s worth something, tell them the property is now worthless and to be bulldozed. Oh, but you’ll get them a NEW property! And they can have “relative equity” - but their old property isn’t worth anything, so that’s zero. Too bad. Never mind your old home was paid off - you will now “have to pay each month to buy it from the state”. Great. So you took a paid-for home away from someone, gave them nothing, and forced them into a new mortgage. Great going. How are they going to pay for that?

Public housing? You’re joking, right? Did you miss the part upthread where I pointed out subsidized housing in this area has a ten year waiting list? There are no vacancies in public housing around here.

Look, I think you have good intentions, but I also think you don’t have any direct experience with the situation. These are major issues with an otherwise excellent concept. As most of these neighborhoods are older ones houses that are entirely paid off really are fairly common, especially among the older residents. Even some of the younger people have fully paid for homes that they inherited from their parents. This isn’t a matter of refinancing a mortgage for people who move every 5 or 10 years anyway, these really are long-term residents in the truest sense of the word.

I live under the jurisdiction of a city that, despite levying a property tax on the building in which I live, does NOT provide water, sewage, street lights, trash collection, or police protection to my entire block. Given that, why do you expect me - or more specifically, why would any property owner on this street - trust that city to give them fair value for their property or really to give a damn if they live or die? I don’t think there’s a plan to be malicious here, I just don’t think people give a damn about the poor folks being evicted. I’d also like to point out that not everyone in these neighborhoods is on some form of government aid, the working poor making too much to qualify for help but not enough to get out are quite common in such areas. These aren’t wards of the state, they’re people who’ve been ignored and have been trying to survive and THEY will see this plan as the government coming in and taking away the one thing they have left of value, a place to live, and give them nothing. Unless I see a plan for the evicted that leaves them in a living situation at least as good as their present one I can not see this as a good thing. And “at least as good” does NOT mean replacing a paid-for home with a forced mortgage or telling them to live in public housing that does not exist.

If you paid for your house years ago you do not want to be “boarded”.

And it seems the local city here saves plenty of money by simply not providing us with services anyway.

Good. Now, what compensation will someone who fully owns their home receive for their property? What sort of relocation assistance will be provided? Is there aid for those not physically able to move themselves?

Again - you are assuming none of these people work. Why is that? I swear, we working poor are the most invisible part of this society. I don’t qualify for ANY government aid. None. Period. Zippo. I’m still poor. I’m not on welfare but I’m poor. Why is that such an inconceivable concept? If the government WAS supporting me and mine I’d be much amenable to being shuffled around but the fact is I do have to pay taxes and I don’t get jack for it. Now you want to come in and take my home away from me? And I’m supposed to trust that this is going to be OK? WHY?

And if I wasn’t poor, if I had the money to move, I would have already done so.

I don’t disagree with that - I do have a problem that there is enormous potential here to take from people without compensation - don’t we call that “theft”? - and make poor people even poorer, AND potentially leave them homeless as well.

I hear everyone talking about how wonderful this idea is - except the people who would be forced to move. It’s easy to talk about bulldozing someone else’s home. Tell me, how would YOU feel about the government telling you to leave your home, it will shortly be destroyed, and just trust the government to put you in a new housing situation?

I just want to be clear that in Flint these issues are adequately addressed (the city already owns hundreds of homes (foreclosed for failure to pay taxes) in the “concentration area” that will be substituted for existing homes in nonviable areas, the city IS providing services and stands to save money directly for the plan, etc). However, what is an effective solution in one location is not automatically a good solution in another. Whenever people treat a plan as a panacea without looking at the facts, problems will result.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/business/22flint.html

I think the key statement though from the article:
“Not everyone’s going to win,” he said. “But now, everyone’s losing.”