At a glance for some this seems like a grand idea but not all are agreeing! Thoughts?
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/op...al/5457958002/
https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/det...vaging-8k-more
Printable View
At a glance for some this seems like a grand idea but not all are agreeing! Thoughts?
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/op...al/5457958002/
https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/det...vaging-8k-more
It's really not a good idea. They have horribly mismanaged the previous demolition plan that was financed by the fed. Now duggan wants to take out big debt in the middle of a pandemic? Heck no.
There has been fierce push-back against this, I expect the vote to fail.
A bit amazed at how slanted the story is as it appears in The Detroit News. I'd call that an editorial; not a news story. But that's today's media, I guess.
It is a good idea. Too much blight in this city.
Bankole is a columnist and it's clearly listed as "an opinion piece, not reflecting the views of The Detroit News."Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray1936
The city of Detroit really shouldn't be in the demolition business. Is there any other city on Earth doing something like this?
Duggan should be putting that energy into coordinating a regional land-use policy. The abandonment issue isn't just Detroit's problem anymore, so there should be much more regional political appetite to create a sane solution, instead of each city just demolishing itself.
Not saying that I agree with what Bankole says here 100%, I don't. But what I find interesting is that when an editorial is agreed upon and supported it IS news, when not, it's not news. Just saying...
Anyway what I want to know is WHO stands to make all the demolition moneys? Follow the rich, getting richer and then you'll often find motive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray1936
Quote:
Originally Posted by 401don
Missed that, Don. Thanks for the heads up. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 401don
Well that explains why it is under the [OPINION] subheading of the Detroit New online page.... :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Ray1936
I'll wait till I hear what the folks over at the 'No Bullshit Hour' podcast have to say about it.
Charlie, Karen, Mike and Detroit Red should be all over it sometime soon. If not, somebody should tip them off.
They have a great show but Charlie and Mike don't live in Detroit, I believe they both live in Oakland County. And Karen lives in one of Detroit's ritziest neighborhoods, so I'm not sure she can speak for all of Detroit, and certainly not us in less premier neighborhoods stewing in all this blight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Wesson
I believe Bankole and Riddle also thought Duggan was going to lose reelection in 2017. He won nearly 75% of the votes. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by 401don
The real problem is the overwhelming size of the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
No other city is doing this. However, no other city has 90,000 tax foreclosed residential properties in their landbank. No other city has almost 20,000 empty residential buildings in the landbank. [[that doesn't include the vacant delipidated houses still in private hands.) The second closest is Cleveland with under 8,000 properties in their landbank. No other city in the world has an issue like this.
The landbank doesn't have the funds to mothball all the vacant property in it's possession. They don't even have the funds to keep the lots mowed after the last set of budget cuts they were hit with. So the bond money is needed to stabilize half of these derelict houses and tear the worst ones down.
If you can figure out a way to get all those houses back into tax paying use, they wouldn't need to tear them down. If you bought one it would help the city.
When Maurice Cox was the city planner a few years ago, he had very sensible plans to revitalize challenged neighborhoods. That is, he sought to rehabilitate homes that could be saved, tear down those that were beyond repair and improve the neighborhood's amenities such as pocket parks and repaired sidewalks. He started in the Fitzgerald neighborhood just west of U of D. I recall visiting Fitzgerald on the day when the Mayor dedicated an attractive new park. Alas, Maurice Cox moved on to accept the appointment as city planner in Chicago. However, there are still some plans to accomplish in other neighborhoods what Maurice Cox started in Fitzgerald.
Does anyone know how the funding sought in Proposal N fits with the systematic plan that Maurice Cox had to revitalize challenged Detroit neighborhoods?
Sounds like landbanks aren't the solution to revitalizing the city then?Quote:
Originally Posted by ndavies
I would suggest that the city [[and region) address the actual problem, which has been obvious for decades: sprawl.
The city can't do anything about sprawl, they dont control that obviously.
The state and other counties would have to do something about that and they couldn't give less of a shit.
Maybe Gilbert could lobby Lansing for a greenbelt since the only time this country gets something is when a billionaire wants it.
The land bank is the only solution to the problem. It doesn't matter what you call it, You need a government entity that does the functions the land bank is doing.
Most of these properties ended up in the landbank with encumbered titles. They have tax liens[[that's how they got foreclosed on), water liens and mechanical liens. The land bank cancels past tax liens. They fight with the water department to get water liens released. They take the properties to court to have the mechanical liens quiet titled.
These properties would be unsellable if the land bank didn't get rid of the liens. No developer would go through the costs and headaches of clearing these liens.
Agreed about the land bank. I'm not sure what some people want. Dissolve the land bank and just let these properties magically figure themselves out?
Same plan,you have to rename things when the old funding runs out,the land bank has a pretty good program with helping funding etc. It really makes it more feasible to buy verses rent.Quote:
Originally Posted by renf
In the link it does read 8000 demolition 8000 that are rehabilitation potential.
There is a distinct difference between the two supplied links,the second link addressed the concerns of the first link which kinda makes it pointless.
Both published on the same day but worlds apart.
But like others have posted,it will be a bumpy road because it is a unprecedented situation.
I wish they'd carve out perhaps a couple of million a year for routine litter, debris and garbage cleanup on the interstates, interchanges, exits/on-ramps, thoroughfares, and parks. That would elevate the perception of the city just as much as demolitions.
^ Yes, it is so annoying to see the trash blown about, collected in corners, lots and yards. And folks tossing stuff out their car windows as they drive by. The trash in your neighborhood starts with those living there. Outside of dumping which is also a problem!
We clean up our neighborhood streets every time we walk the dog but we can't clean up thoroughfares, that requires real manpower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zacha341
Okay, then the land bank alone is not a sufficient policy solution to address the abandonment problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by ndavies
Me? Not much of a sprawl guy. I like my Hamtramck better than Troy.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
But controlling sprawl means reducing the supply of housing [[or land to build thereon). No sprawl sounds great. More expensive housing not so great.
We're lucky to live somewhere that housing costs are reasonable. Beautiful, mostly peaceful, and sprawl controlled Portland median home value $467,000. Detroit? $36k. And my charming, dense Hamtramck, $106k.
Sprawl rocks.
I have a fondness for Hamtramck as well.
Lot's of goodtimes there. It was much better there than my lower Eastside neighborhood and abode or is that Adobe. :-)
If 36k houses were actually good for a economy or population growth Detroit would be booming instead of not being able to tear down the rotting burned out hulks fast enough.
But the cost to maintain a house in Detroit isn't much different from what it costs in Portland. Imagine spending $15,000 to upgrade a kitchen on a house worth $36,000. Now imagine spending $15,000 to upgrade a kitchen on a house worth $467,000. That's why Detroit has a problem with abandonment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
In the same vein, in cities like Portland, purchasing a home is an appreciating investment. If I bought that same house worth $467k for $265k seven years ago, I'd be mighty pleased with the ROI.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Inexpensive real estate is no different than inexpensive shares of stock. Unless there's some potential for the value to increase, it's OK for maintaining the status quo, but weak as a wealth builder.
I don't agree with this analogy. A stock doesn't have fixed maintenance costs. Holding a piece of stock will never cost you more than the stock is worth. Owning a house in Detroit that needs repair often costs the owner more than the house is worth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Onthe405
This is a part of the problem. Detroit needs the values of residential property to appreciate. Appreciation is what gives a homeowner a stake, it builds wealth and teaches financial discipline. Especially for first time home owners. Without appreciation a majority of the neighborhoods will decline and just become a larger slumlords paradise. Slumlords will continue the cycle of buying cheap renting until collapse of the house and then walk away and stick the the rest of us with the blight.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
The anti Detroit mentality in this state needs to end. If it doesn’t in 20 years the next generation will be trying to figure out what the hell to do with all the abandoned houses in Inkster, Roseville, Warren, Redford etc... Stop picking winners and losers. Create conditions where everyone wins. Other states do it.
The property taxes are way to high in the most challenged communities especially Detroit. The construction gap never closes. The housing values fall or stagnate and become impossible to mortgage. That is the kiss of death.
Tear all of them down. Detroit would become a safer and more attractive city from an investment perspective. We have plenty of real estate developers building residential properties in Corktown, Midtown, Brush Park, North End, West Village and Woodbridge, and having more lots available helps to spur further investment.
Another point that this reminded me of is that this isn't only a residential property issue. The creep of abandonment is already showing up in commercial real estate of inner ring suburbs. Almost the entire area around Northland appears to be abandoned now. There are also abandoned commercial properties dotting Dearborn and Livonia.Quote:
Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit
At some point the solution to Detroit's difficulties has to be something other than slowly tearing the city down.
Good point. This is why I don't understand a big step that won't really fix the problem, just mitigate it. If this could allow me to drive through Detroit no longer seeing abandoned homes, then that's something - but it isn't and with considerable cost. Let me guess the places homes get torn down will be near desirable areas if up to Developer Duggan. Fine, but then why does the entire city have to pay for it?....Quote:
Originally Posted by ndavies
I'm over the intense emphasis on development. Time for Duggan to get back to quality of life for people.
Sounds like you're ready to write a check?Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke09
That proposal to tear down 8,000 homes in the ghettohoods of Detroit is going NOWHERE just a waste of city tax dollars Vote. HELL NO on N!
https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...proposition-n/
"Proposition N is a $250 million in investment bonds that will be used to demolish 8,000 vacant homes and renovate 8,000 others, but Call 'Em Out is skeptical due to audits on how Detroit has used federal money in the past.
“They have double bookings, they have mismanaged money, they have paid vendors who were not on the approved vendors list,” Agnes Hitchcock said. “They have done so many things with the money they already had.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Detroit today is still a poor city, with poor ghettohoods, with businesses in its main roads, with poor school districts. It's hard to maintain any Detroit home that was built more since the 1890s to 1970s. 38 percent of Detroit residents are poor living on welfare checks and food stamps and WIC with more single families having up to 5 children. Most Detroit homes are still controlled by slumlords. It's hard to maintain a Detroit home with you do not have a steady salary based job and dirt poor.
Well actually I am leaning towards voting "yes" on N being a Certified
Tax-N-Spend Democrat [[Phrase Tea Party Republican TM'd.)
It was almost a holiday in the neighborhood when the burned out hulk
that had been sitting two houses away was torn down after five years.
As an unfortunate side effect of an approval on N, though, funding
police pensions from the budget pie would probably become more
difficult.
Especially since a resounding majority of the Detroit police force
and police retirees don't live within the city limits, it is hoped that
the State of Michigan legislature is moved soon to allocate funding
towards their pensions and police pensions statewide. If the State
of Michigan does do that, that would help blight management within
the city.
Indeed, recruiting for the police from all areas and not just
within Detroit can result in a more diverse and talented force,
but care must be taken to not recruit those who lean towards
genocide of "The Other". There are genocide studies to be
consulted. Genocides don't just pop out of nowhere. There
are lead-up stages that can be studied and hopefully averted.
Here is a sample from academia on that topic:
https://www.keene.edu/academics/ah/c...cide/download/
Today there are over 120,000 vacant homes in Detroit. About 20,000 Detroit homes are restored. That leaves about 80,000 homes in Detroit needs to be either torn down or fix up. Bringing in $250 mills just to torn down 8,000 homes sounds fishy! The average cost of demolishing a vacant or abandon Detroit home is about $31,000 per land. Where is the rest of millions go. And it can not be for something else other then using that money just to tear down 8K Detroit ghettohood homes.
Still vote HELL NO on Proposal N.
Yes. I need to do my math step-by-step and paint-by-number
to this day. So I powered on the Sharp Calculator and found that,
250 mill divided by 8,000 houses to be demo'ed came to...
$31,250.00 per demolished house...and that sum is too high per
demolished house, even if its next door neighbors will rejoice.
But that is not precisely the intent of the Proposal.
Subtracting $9,000 per actual demolished house from the
$31,250.00 gives $22,250 for one recoverable house. That
sum is enough to put new windows, roofing, siding, and new
plumbing and new wiring into a modest house.
You are dreaming. You can't even put a new porch on a historic Detroit home for $20K. I say that on good and frustrated authority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpling
Okay, so what is the story with the new porch? How far along
is it right now? How far would an additional $10,000 for materials
and $12,250 for labor and fees take you, assuming that you
would be getting a grant from the 250 mil?
I am not seriously suggesting that this is the case, but if one is
very cynical, one could surmise that if passed, almost none of the
$250 mil would actually be directed towards housing and almost
all of it would be directed towards easing the impending pension
crises and making up for casino revenue shortfall. There are
precedents for Detroit voters approving funding that is then
redirected by the government towards alternative uses.
There are precedents for Detroit voters approving funding with
"community benefits" promised but then it seems that the
benefits only materialize if they are spelled out in writing
and a court later sees fit to require that they be provided.
"$22,250 for one recoverable house. That
sum is enough to put new windows, roofing, siding, and new
plumbing and new wiring into a modest house."
This isn't $20K. This is more like at least $100K.
Okay. Where I live in Detroit, 1,000 square foot bungalows
and ranches are common. Googling around, and getting
prices applicable to the entire United States, rather than the
fairly priced Detroit area, "Homeadvisor" and "Homeguide"
estimate that for a 1,000 square foot house, residing with
vinyl siding will cost $7,500. Replacing ten windows will
cost $5,000. Replacing the roof is $5,500.
The Paint-By-Number Round Job Estimate for all of this
is $7,500 + $5,000 + $5,500 = $18,000. This still leaves
$22,250 - $18,000 = $4,250 in the budget. This could be
used in various helpful ways to upgrade a very modest
bungalow. Maybe a new furnace would be the final upgrade
that makes the Land Bank House [[assuming that's what this
would be) salable for maybe $15,000.
We are not talking about an established market where mortgages
are readily available with reasonable interest rates. This is
about a market that had $75,000 houses in 2006 with mortgages
with 11% interest rates backed by overseas money that crashed
when gas prices were squeezed higher by shipping less overseas oil
and then there was NOT a Foreclosure Moratorium here in Michigan -
a definite oversight - so then the Detroit homeowners were evicted
by the Wayne County Sheriff and then after some years the houses
were picked over by professional scrappers. City Council Person
Gabe Leland stood with the scrapyards to minimize identification
measures to minimize illegal scrapping. After the market crash,
unless a vacant house had an owner to vouch for it, the police
would not stop the scrappers from stripping it until Mayor Duggan
was elected. Some time after Duggan was elected and the
bankruptcy process was concluded the police began again to
respond to scrapping and vandalism calls for non-owned vacant
houses.
Even in other areas in Michigan, real estate industry professionals
did their best to make foreclosed houses look worse to reduce
the wholesale purchase price for the neighboring houses if they were
to have to be sold. For example they would keep numerous notices
plastered prominently on the doors and windows of the foreclosed
houses and would take down pretty curtains if a neighbor put those
up in foreclosed house to keep up the value of the neighborhood
house.
I was licensed building contractor for over 30 years,looks like I could have been a bazillionair in Detroit.Quote:
Originally Posted by motorcity
But it is not fair using that as an example without providing the specs.
In the 1950s through the 70s city leaders across the country were trying to figure out how to get people to move back to the urban core.
Some genius came up with a term called urban renewal,code speak for tear it all down and they will come and build new.
Some smaller cities destroyed 60% of their historic housing stock going back into the early 1800s,even today they are still trying to figure out what to do with the empty spaces.
If the city takes a house and even if they spend $50,000 fixing it and then turns around and puts a first home buyer into it for $30,000,the taxpayer has not lost.
The federal monies put out for these programs are designed to lose money short term,but benefit the city long term.
The very reason the funds are available is because the feds recognize that the houses are not worth putting money into in the first place and the only way to make them feasible long term is at a loss.
You cannot view it like you are actually buying the house and fixing it to flip,it is two totally different objectives.
It has not cost the city residents,outside of a few federal tax dollars a dime.
In return you get to add another house on the tax roll,another long term resident that spends money locally and so on,the list is long on how neighborhood stabilization benefits the city long term.
As long as the numbers are within reason,they are irrelevant long term.
You know what the difference is now?
You have city leadership that is actually taking advantage of the fed programs out there,it is a stark contrast to the last 15 years when the available grants were not applied for,applied for late or the funds received were never even used and were clawed back by the feds.
That is not at all correct, if you merchandise it well and get reasonable trades you can maybe remodel a bathroom and a kitchen for 22500.00. Check out the price of materials these days, you won’t believe it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpling
Remodeling isn't my wheelhouse in the least but I do know that
metro Detroit abounds with craftspeople and do-it-yourselfers who
can work wonders even given a smaller remodeling budget.
I have written several, and could have been more if it weren't for DLB and their speculative nature, plus the demo permit hurdles.Quote:
Originally Posted by 401don
Okay, what happened with the Detroit Land Bank in your instance? It
sounds as if you own a house in Detroit and had one adjacent house
demolished, but then there was another house that was a Land Bank
house that you could not purchase in order to demolish?
Do you think Proposal N is a good one to vote YES on?
Thank you!
I'm totally with you except the "No other city in the world has an issue like this" part.Quote:
Originally Posted by ndavies
There are even worse problems of abandonment if you look some places overseas, while the contexts are different.
And it doesn't detract from your argument. Everything else is correct.
Hell yes!Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
And its impetuses.
Yep. It's why when someone somewhere says "But you can buy a home for $1200 in Detroit" I shake my head. And they keep on saying it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ndavies
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by motorcity
That would be nice and I don't mean to offend but let's not prioritize the people who only pass through Detroit on an expressway cut to and from the airport.
I know a few of those. They only see the tops of some houses and churches, if they look.
This is a different year. Buses of people doing roadside cleanups
as part of their community service requirement this year are fewer.
There is more litter on the right of ways, too.
We are just happy that extra trash from people staying at home
more is being picked up for now.
This is ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
The cost differential between Portand and Detroit / Hamtramck has nothing to do with any regulations about sprawl.
Besides, who do you think pays the most when new roads must be built and utility companies need to keep expanding their infrastructure further and further into the exurbs-- the ones who need sufficient water pressure to serve their mcmansion on reclaimed farmland or those who never left the city and whose water mains break from the increased pressure? The ones who need new lines to be built to deliver their utilities or the ones whose infrastructure has long existed? As road and utility networks grow wider are they more or less expensive to maintain? Who pays and who benefits?
The answer is easy: city dwellers subsidize the exurbs in rates and taxes that wouldn't otherwise be necessary. It's a zero sum game.
And stop pitting county against county, and township against city.Quote:
Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit
Sprawl is an intense drain on our resources.
Just like we shouldn't have to pay higher home insurance rates because some others insist they deserve to insure their second home on a sandbar far away.
If you insist to build where you're a drain, pay up.
The rest of us shouldn't shoulder the burden.
Thanks for sharing this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpling
Not to diminish the issue, because I recognize it causes far worse problems than I'm about to describe, but it's been a long-running source of entertainment [[at least for me) to see a tourist ask a NYC police officer for directions. The officer almost never has a clue.
There's no residency requirement in NYC either.
I have [[only somewhat) mixed feelings about a requirement, but when a requirement exists police are much more in touch with the community they serve.
Maybe there's a way to incentivize city residency with some kind of differential in pay or another benefit.
I know that's been tried in Detroit before, with credits offered to those who move into the city.
But maybe they were different times? And maybe it's worth trying some combination of a carrot and a stick?
Yes, this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpling
I do a lot of my own improvements, and not just more affordably, almost always [[not always) better than if I'd contracted.
Even though it always takes me much longer.
And there are some things I know better than to try myself.
There are plenty of places that some of my family members live, that are nearby those abandoned houses, that should have been torn down long ago.
But for some reason, they can't be torn down.
Proposal N can solve that problem.
Then there's the history of the city of Detroit mismanagement of funds. Taking out too many bonds is what got us into emergency management.
Which leaves me the question on whether the city would do what they say they would do.
The city council almost passed it themselves before a public hearing was held that filled out the entire Auditorium at the CAYMC.
I was there, and there was a lot of pissed-off folks.
Now it's left to Detroiters to decide whether this bond is worth issuing out, and then spend 30 years to pay out.
By the time that bond is paid, I'll be dead.
Whatever the proposal I wonder when they will ever get around to tearing down this burnt-out hulk of an apartment building in H. Park?
That building was a gem among many on Woodward Avenue.
It was a highlight of the bus commute tapestry from Royal Oak
to Wayne State University when I lived in Royal Oak and attended
WSU.
I hope that biding can be saved. If it were in Detroit I think it could be but being in highland Park I fear it may be doomed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpling
Unfortunately, that proposal only works for the city of Detroit. I wonder if there's anything that Highland Park can do now. Do they even have a government left?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zacha341
Proposal N means NOTHING! vote NO on N.
How much would it cost to tear down everything that can't be saved? Why didn't this get budgeted in the bankruptcy?
How much does it cost to tear down one blighted house in metro Detroit in 2020?
https://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...nd/5490507002/
This article projects that the bond amount is $250 million and the interest amount is $240 million to be paid over 30 years.
Elsewhere it is noted that $160 million will be allocated to the demolition of 8,000 houses which is not the full number of all houses that need it
which is thought to be 14,000 houses.
$160 million for 8,000 houses to be demolished
comes to $20,000 per house. Is this a fair, current
adjusted market rate for a demolition? The cited bond
interest rates are at least 3% and as high as 6.58%.
Let's say for the argument that the City of Detroit will
need to pay 5% interest over 30 years on the $20,000
to demolish one house.
I'm thinking personally I will abstain from voting on Proposal N. A
lot of blocks would really benefit from having their blighted houses
torn down - this is very, very true. I'm just not convinced that
Proposal N is the way forward.
For that one house demolition at $20,000, with a payback period
of 30 years, and with interest being at 5%, the grand total amount
being paid overall is $38,651.16. [[Determined using a
"mortgage calculator" tool elsewhere on the Web.)
Oh well of course there will be inflation during the thirty years so the effective grand total will be less.
It's not ridiculous at all. Portland's Urban Growth Boundary has long been blamed for having the unintended consequence of high land/home values.Quote:
Originally Posted by bust
I just took a quick read on "Portland's Urban Growth Boundary". It looks like their Governor had foresight and got the ball rolling around 1973, the it was formalized and adopted cooperatively by more governmental bodies, and cities in the mid/late 1970's.Quote:
Originally Posted by LongGone06
In my skim of the material, it seems to make a lot of sense. However, locally at this point it's coulda, woulda, shoulda... A great many things could've gone differently "if only", yet here we are.
Short of a time machine taking us all back 50 years with the hope that we'd have some of that foresight and develop with better planning/control, what are we to do?
We can't go back, a "boundary" now would be irrelevant, and unenforceable, with all the people people spread out, both within Detroit city limits [[with all it's open spaces) and throughout the populated sprawl zones, how would we reverse that and force [[I use that word because it would likely take that) people to move back within a smaller radius of Detroit?
It may well be much more practical to learn how to work together Regionally to improve what we currently have... I know, slim chance, right? Still more likely than a time machine turning back 50 years of history.
The Urban Growth Boundary was a great idea.
As for the allegation it has resulted in higher home prices, that's more because people moving into Portland want to actually live in Portland, not one of its suburbs-- and they want to live in one of a few specific Portland neighborhoods. It was a sundown town and it wasn't so long ago some people wanted to make Oregon a white ethno state, and it's still hella segregated.
But look outside the most desirable neighborhoods and you can buy a 3 bedroom 2 full bath home within city limits only a 20 minute drive from downtown for the same price as something comparable in Clawson or Livonia. Or, if you're willing to live in a suburb, still within the urban growth boundary, you can get even more for less.
People moving into Portland want the cosmopolitan multi-ethnic ideal they've been hearing about [[so long as they're not overwhelmed by it). They don't want Clackamas, they want a home in one of a few particular areas, where they've driven the prices up, and up. Even though if they were willing to forego their cultural standards they could get a lot more home for their buck outside city limits, and still be 20 minutes from downtown.
How long does it take to drive to Campus Martius from West Bloomfield, Canton Twp, Clinton Twp, Farmington, or Grosse Ile? Have you ever compared home prices equally distant from Portland?
The cost differential between Portland and Detroit/Hamtramck has to do with culture, and what the people moving in want. They want safety and diversity, and they'll pay a premium to avoid Proud Boys and MAGA hats-- not always easy. If they're parents they'll pay an even steeper premium for good schools.
Portland's Urban Growth Boundary has spared it from spreading unabated further and further into its hinterlands, and has encouraged reinvestment in the city. It makes it better.
Vic01 is right: If only Detroit could turn back the clock.
Not only does a growth boundary encourage reinvestment, it encourages density which encourages efficiencies that otherwise may not be practical. It discourages wasteful excess. And it discourages certain malevolent cultures that thrive under the us-vs-them mentality that characterizes sprawl.
Homes in Detroit and Hamtramck are relatively affordable. But on average they're a dubious investment and in many respects they're in comparison not a better place to live.
Pick a year, any year, and it's very likely that someone who bought a home in Portland that year would be better off. If maybe not for the culture in the neighborhood they found.
Signs are that trend will continue.
VOTE NO ON N because Proposal N means nothing for our Detroit ghetto hoods.
I'm Danny and I'm approve this message.
I didn't say it was bad. I didn't say it was good. I merely pointed out that Portland's UGB has been blamed for driving up land and home prices. Whether or not you agree with the statement doesn't make it any less true.Quote:
Originally Posted by bust
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpling
Proposal N means NOTHING for Detroit ghetto hoods. Just using federal dollars to tear down only 8K homes and not finishing the rest of abandon buildings. Detroit has over 100,000 abandon buildings and all of them are very dangerous. People living in their ghetto hoods are sick and tired looking at abandon building next door, across the street and block after block. Detroit city government need to mark, cover up every last abandon building. If that building is not as dangerous save it, find a buyer and that buyer will fix that building and get it up to code. If the abandon building is too dangerous tear it down. But requires more monies to demolition and dirt fill up. Also when Detroit City Gov't receives that money for demolition of 8K buildings, they better NOT squander with that money. There must be oversight to inform our U.S. Federal Gov't what selective Detroit dangerous building is on the demo list.
I say Detroiters Proposal N is NONSENSE! Vote NO NO NO!!!
Let's find a better way to save Detroit ghetto hoods.
Take a look at totally ruined and long gone Detroit ghetto hood. It looks like the SOUTH BRONX!!! of the late 1970s to the 1980s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJKz8ytO6vg
Take a look at the guy that is restoring Detroit homes one house at a time... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX_1HjU93uY&t=48s
See the difference folks. SAVE DETROIT NOW!!!
$38,650 just to tear down one house, many of which are
bunched together on certain streets in certain neighborhoods.
So say there is one block with ten burned out abandoned houses
covered with weeds on it. That's a $386,500 pot right there...over
30 years...with $200,000 going out in the near future to the demolition
contractors and crew, and $186,500 as interest over the next
30 years. That's assuming that funds go to demolitions in the
first place. There are louder voices than those of ten abandoned
houses on a block.
However there would be that many fewer fires in vacant houses which
would mean fewer fire department runs which would mean a lower reported arson rate for the City of Detroit as well as fewer next door neighbors' houses burning down as collateral damage.
And, for what that's worth, I haven't been able to find a recent arson
rate for the City of Detroit. The arsons have dropped substantially
since thousands of houses were demolished and, as importantly,
arson investigators were hired. However if someone is aware of
the arson rate for years 2018 and 2019 or even 2017 thank you
in advance for posting it.
I watched "The Shea Show" a while back.
He is a property manager that rehabs houses which are then rented out.
He uses funds from outside investors. He is doing good work.
Mr. Shea is going great keeping up the Detroit homes. He's in a long fight at save Detroit homes from being on the demo list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpling
Lets not forget that the bond issue also calls for the "basic" renovation of another 8,000 homes. Have you seen what's being offered on the Land back auction site? Shells of houses that are horrific money pits in high crime areas.
That’s how it works though,it encourages people to move in and fix up properties and changes the neighborhood to desirable and increases value.
Most waiting to buy in already nice neighborhoods,find themselves priced out and then it is to late.
Its okay if you are newly married,single etc. but tough if you have children.
I remember when nobody wanted to live in downtown Charlotte,you could buy a historic mansion that was chopped up into boarding houses and was high crime for 20k,10 years later you need a few million just to even think about buying there.
You cannot look at how it is today.
The people of Detroit have spoken. N passes easily. Spend it wisely Mayor Duggan.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...ge/6161149002/
Duggan better not fuck this up.
The city didn't deserve to take on this debt, the federal government should have provided more funds.
This is horrible Prop N is just a ghetto hood band aid for temporary destruction job to tear down only 8K Detroit homes. That's nothing!
With only 8K homes and temp jobs in Detroit. It will be messed up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satiricalivory
I haven't been following this issue closely. Why should the federal government provide funds to tear down houses in Detroit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Satiricalivory
The 90 million to renovate 8000 vacant homes works out to 11,250 per home. Considering these homes are probably stripped and will need everything from new roofs & windows to plumbing & heating and paint, that's not going to go very far.Quote:
Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit
I believe the plan is to just stabilize the homes, not completely renovate them. So windows, doors, roof repair.Quote:
Originally Posted by 401don
Because they caused the problem with their highways, their home loans to white families after the war and their failed suburban experiment.Quote:
Originally Posted by LongGone06
The federal government owes this city [[and many others) billions of dollars.