MSU proposes urban agriculture project in Detroit

[nain rouge]

I can't say for sure, but perhaps this is why we aren't seeing eye to eye. Detroit will never be a giant urban farm. There's no way we will ever have 140 square miles of urban farmland. And that's not the purpose of this project.

I never imagined that. But look at most of the plans being floated around to rightsize Detroit - inevitably, at some point, it involves demolishing a bunch of poor neighborhoods and turning them into urban farms under the guise of consolidation. But my question is: where do all those poor people go? They'll quickly be priced out of the remaining "good"/gentrified neighborhoods outside the city core, and we know that core is already getting pricey.

So basically, the poor will be evicted from the city, which I believe is the ultimate intent of rightsizing. I resent MSU's efforts because from my vantage it just looks like another PR move by urban planners. They want to make a case for larger farms in Detroit, and what better way to do it than to convince a large university to spend $100 million on a farm in the city? It's just too perfect, and coincidentally it arrives right on the heels of the consent agreement.

I want solutions to Detroit's problems that fix poverty, not chase it out of town. The argument "well, it's better than nothing" shouldn't be an excuse for people with money to do whatever they want. I'm sure City Council feels the same way. MSU's plans, as they stand now, don't really benefit the people living in Detroit right now - it will exist as a sort of isolated community separate from the rest of Detroit. And also, this idea that MSU's research center could reinvent farming and the middle class as we know it is pure speculation, and the more likely reality is that the gains from MSU's research will be much more modest.

[Detroitnerd]

I never imagined that. But look at most of the plans being floated around to rightsize Detroit - inevitably, at some point, it involves demolishing a bunch of poor neighborhoods and turning them into urban farms under the guise of consolidation. But my question is: where do all those poor people go? They'll quickly be priced out of the remaining "good"/gentrified neighborhoods outside the city core, and we know that core is already getting pricey.

So basically, the poor will be evicted from the city, which I believe is the ultimate intent of rightsizing. I resent MSU's efforts because from my vantage it just looks like another PR move by urban planners. They want to make a case for larger farms in Detroit, and what better way to do it than to convince a large university to spend $100 million on a farm in the city? It's just too perfect, and coincidentally it arrives right on the heels of the consent agreement.

I want solutions to Detroit's problems that fix poverty, not chase it out of town. The argument "well, it's better than nothing" shouldn't be an excuse for people with money to do whatever they want. I'm sure City Council feels the same way. MSU's plans, as they stand now, don't really benefit the people living in Detroit right now - it will exist as a sort of isolated community separate from the rest of Detroit. And also, this idea that MSU's research center could reinvent farming and the middle class as we know it is pure speculation, and the more likely reality is that the gains from MSU's research will be much more modest.

I don't really have anything bad to say about MSU. In fact, their extension program has been a help for urban farmers, thanks to their connection to the Garden Resource Program. But I understand where you're coming from. In this region, we don't solve social problems; we move them around.

[corktownyuppie]

I never imagined that. But look at most of the plans being floated around to rightsize Detroit - inevitably, at some point, it involves demolishing a bunch of poor neighborhoods and turning them into urban farms under the guise of consolidation. But my question is: where do all those poor people go? They'll quickly be priced out of the remaining "good"/gentrified neighborhoods outside the city core, and we know that core is already getting pricey.

So basically, the poor will be evicted from the city, which I believe is the ultimate intent of rightsizing.

The ultimate intent of rightsizing isn't to evict the poor. It's to reduce the per person cost structure of running the city. In other words, When 100 poor people are paying for 200 people's bills, no wonder they feel poor. They're already poor to begin with, and now they're shouldering the load of twice as many people.

To fix this imbalance, you need to bring people in or reduce the cost structure so it's in line with the number of people here. There's no way you could possibly evict people from the city. There's too many poor, and there's way, way, way too much land.

Let's say MSU/Hantz/Bill Gates buys up 10% of the city and turns it into million-dollar housing that none of us can afford. What does that accomplish? Well, first it puts millions of dollars in the city coffers via property tax or income tax...that helps improve services. They also spend money in the city. Lots of money. That creates jobs. Well what about the people already living in those neighborhoods? Well, they'll move to one of the other 90% of the city that is still not gentrified.

And what happens if there are no other neighborhoods left for the poor? What happens if every square mile of land is either gentrified neighborhoods or farmland? Well, it means that the city is making money hand over fist, first of all. It also means that there are no more blighted areas, crime is decreased, the police force has more resources, more manpower, and less territory to cover. And it also means there's more money to help deal with the social problems of the poor.

That's not the situation to be avoided...that's the solution to the problem.

You will not solve poverty without rich people. You won't necessarily solve it with rich people. But you definitely aren't going to solve it without rich people. Detroit is the case study for what happens when you try to take care of the poor by chasing away all the people with money.

[Detroitnerd]

And what happens if there are no other neighborhoods left for the poor? What happens if every square mile of land is either gentrified neighborhoods or farmland? Well, it means that the city is making money hand over fist, first of all. It also means that there are no more blighted areas, crime is decreased, the police force has more resources, more manpower, and less territory to cover. And it also means there's more money to help deal with the social problems of the poor.

That's not the situation to be avoided...that's the solution to the problem.

A few reactions:

It's weird to see this framed in business-speak. Re: my first bold: The city making money hand over fist? It's a government, not a business. Cities collect revenue, and it's rarely framed in the usual profit-making terms; it's framed as operating at a surplus.

You do realize that last sentiment [[my second bold) about having some resources to help the poor is sort of meaningless if the whole city is gentrified or farmland?

[corktownyuppie]

I'm not one of these "operate government solely as a business" guys. I only use the words "hand over fist" in stark contrast to the situation we're in right now, which is the opposite of "hand over fist". I want to take care of the poor, too. But are we really taking care of the poor right now? It's arguable that we're not really taking care of anyone right now. You want to take care of the poor? You need money. You want money? You need to attract people who make money.

As to the second point, yes, it is irrelevant if the whole city is gentrified. And when we get to the point where even 75% of the city is gentrified, I think it's important that we continue to explore how we can take care of our poorest residents.

But man...we're talking about a city that is poorer than poor. With costs designed for twice as many average households. And the household that are here earn much less than average. It's a stretch to say that even 20% of our land is sustainable and functional. Maybe, what...3% of our land is gentrified?

We need to be basing our policies on how to bring MORE money in to the city. And despite my general philosophical alignment with social and economic progressivism, Detroit is the case study for where pro-growth and pro-money policies are desperately needed.