Michigan to receive $100M to demolish vacant homes

[Honky Tonk]

what about the waitress or bar keep that cannot afford to live in EEV?

They have just as much right to become a home owner as others ,they will purchase something,maybe not fancy well built with a large yard but it would be a functional roof over their head that they can call home within their budget, and maybe a few years down the line they can sell that house and move into EEV.

There is or could be a need for all house stock just as there are all levels of pay grades and to write something off as saying they were just crappy built houses anyways is the same as saying to demolish will rid of drug dealers.

They were built to serve a need ,they were some bodies house ,home and a place where families were raised with memories the city needs taxpayers,homeowners with pride in their neighborhoods and strong residents to support the local businesses ,how many vacant lots do you see buying products at Eastern market ?

Hi Richard, Either I'm not getting my point across, or you're not getting it. You're post makes it sound like I'm advocating tearing down perfectly good housing down to prevent low to middle income people from living in Detroit. Do you live in Detroit? The reason I ask that question is I do, and driving around the City, I see houses that, IMO, are beyond repair. Houses that are wooden sided, haven't been painted in years, the lapstrake is warped beyond belief, brickwork and porch steps are missing, the roof is merely cheap blue tarp, [[and in some cases THAT is shot), all the widows have either been removed, [[if aluminum), or broken out, plaster and lattice work has huge holes running the parameter of the room from wires being ripped out for the copper, as is ANY metal, [[read piping, [all the way to the cinderblock basement wall], meters, ductwork, furnace, hot water tank, etc.), ANYTHING of value that CAN be sold, [[doorknobs, hinges, doors, vanities, switches, stair rails), are all GONE. The house frame itself is twisted from years of being water logged from the elements. To top it off, @ least one fire has been started in the house. You seriously can't mean you're going to try and rehab that, do you? If so, Robert Fiasco is looking for a construction manager. I hear there's plenty of money to be made in his outfit. No, I'm sorry, I don't agree money should be wasted on trying to salvage these houses. They were cheaply built during Detroit's boom years, served their purpose, and have been neglected for the last 30-40 years. It's time Richard. Even the homeless no longer occupy these houses. Though stray dogs do. About the only saving grace for these structures is each one comes with an original "GASM", "POBART", or some indistinguishable hand painted artwork. Drive through the neighborhood in Mexicotown around La Colmina. Parts of that area were cleared, then Habitat For Humanity erected affordable housing there, and those neighborhoods are thriving, big time. No rocket scientists live there, it's everyday working people. Eastern Mark-Up needs no help. I used to go there regularly on Saturdays, but no longer do so because of the mass congestions from people coming in from the 'burbs to look @ tomato's. Every bartender or waitress I know, trumps my meager salary in spades. Tell you what, c'mon by, and we'll go for a tour of the areas I'm talking about, I'll drive. If @ the end of my tour, you can still look me in the eye from the passenger seat and say "Yes, Honky Tonk, these houses can and should be rehabbed", I'll buy you a $7 head of your favorite lettuce @ Ho' Foods.

[Richard]

Hi Richard, Either I'm not getting my point across, or you're not getting it. You're post makes it sound like I'm advocating tearing down perfectly good housing down to prevent low to middle income people from living in Detroit.

Well Hi back at you,

See the thing of it is a scrapped out house is a scrapped out house no matter if it is in Detroit or London ,I am very familiar with them as it is kinda what I do from scrapped out houses to scrapped out hotels been there done that.

No I do not live there yet but have bee involved with what the city is on a smaller scale ,the one lesson learned is once a vacant lot appears the possibility of rebuilding on its site is slim the more vacant lots you have the more the fabric of the neighborhood deteriorates.

Tampa and Orlando both had policies in the 80s crack ventures that if your house was raided for drugs three times the fourth time was a visit from the bulldozer ,no ifs and or buts, raid, then 1 hour later it was down no recourse.

It seemed like the thing to do at the time and most were in areas deemed the hood anyways so nobody cared.

All of the sudden it became popular to rehabilitate the downtown but then you had those nasty crack houses scaring the people away ,more demolitions to rid of those nasty pests.

Then it was discovered that no matter how much you revitalize the downtown without the supporting surrounding neighborhoods everything reaches a stall point.

So now you have to spend even more millions to rebuild the surrounding neighborhoods that millions were spent destroying losing much of their original charm sans the crackheads.

The combination of rebuilding the neighborhoods and downtown at the same time was successful in both Mt Dora and St. Augustine all be it on a smaller scale then Detroit.

So what did we learn and did we learn from our past mistakes ? We know pushing the freeways through established neighborhoods has an negative impact and we now also know the importance of supporting neighborhoods to the central core.

Does a missing front porch or windows or a tarp on the roof justify a demolition ? Plumbing [[old copper)and electrical [[cloth covered wire)lath and plaster [[lead based paint)and roof are moot points because it is time for replacement anyways so unless the foundation is cracked so bad from settlement the yes it is demo time.

It is well known that the costs to rehab can outweigh the resale value it is also well known now that for every structure removed from a neighborhood becomes a void, and a long term costly one and one step closer to destroying the fabric of a neighborhood.

Once again that is the purpose of these funds and the neighborhood stabilization funds allocated every year and the millions of dollars sent to cities every year because it is understood that everything related stems from the neighborhood ,destroy that fabric you have crime the more neighborhoods destroyed the more crime.

It is more proactive and less costly long term to have strong neighborhoods.

So now the city is in a reactive state,its answer is to shrink and demolish the surrounding neighborhoods while saving a few.

Does anybody really think a few neighborhoods can supply enough taxes to solve the city's future revenue needs?How much taxes does it take ? $5000 a year to live in the city or what is left?

So anyways here and now you are being provided the revenue to make decisions based on past mistakes of other cities ,twenty years behind on the curve has its benefits,the option to take what was learned from the past to move forward or progress.

Look at the areas that have been mass cleared in the past how are they doing now? Built out now? Plenty of nice cozy houses filled with charming little children playing in the streets?Families adding to the tax base?

No you now have a big vacant lot that does nothing but cost the city and taxpayer money every year.

Take what you have use what you have ,these grants and funds are not designed to make a profit or turn a 20,000 dollar house into a 50,000 dollar house they are used to adsorb the short term losses for long term gain to retain,improve or rebuild that neighborhood fabric that is needed to have a strong city.

Remove the mindset of a profit motivated aspect of rebuilding a neighborhood when it comes to public funds it will be a short term loss but a long term gain for the city as a whole.

I would like to take that ride with you and look you in the eye and say ,wow I am impressed you guys actually learned from the past and did a wonderful job I am impressed.

Until you expand another freeway through that neighborhood again but that's another fish to fry.

FTR this is conversation and opinions everybody is entitled to them one just reads them and forms an opinion no harm no foul.

My apologizes about the length.

[gvidas]

I have really enjoyed this thread. It's interesting to see such an important and so very relevant question hashed out so thoroughly.

Richard, I think you made a great point buried in all that longwindedness: that public funds, such as this, can and should be used for things which the private sector would not be able to turn a profit on.

There's a different return on investment when you spend millions to stabilize a neighborhood. Evaluating that through the lens of profit is misleading. The return on investment is hard to quantify, because it comes over a long time in and a variety of ways. Putting $25k into a house worth $20k might be a great use of money, if it means another family can stay CoD taxpayers, employs local contractors in the process, and keeps a community intact.

Even more so if the only other choices for the money are bulldozers or returning it.

[corktownyuppie]

We have been "bulldozing blighted neighborhoods" since the 1950s. What hath it wrought?

We've been bulldozing them? We may have been talking about bulldozing them. We may have been planning to bulldoze them. We may have even bulldozed some of them.

But look around, and I'd say that if we had bulldozed and amputated quick enough, we might have had far fewer to amputate.

[Wesley Mouch]

Then it was discovered that no matter how much you revitalize the downtown without the supporting surrounding neighborhoods everything reaches a stall point.
...
The combination of rebuilding the neighborhoods and downtown at the same time was successful in both Mt Dora and St. Augustine all be it on a smaller scale then Detroit ...snip...

The theory sounds great, and certain ties in with my belief that it is equally important to have strong neighborhoods. Making the decision to allocate precious tax dollars to a theory is difficult -- unless is is proven to work or can be tested objectively. Otherwise you're asking taxpayers to increase funding with only a theory.

Who funded this? If you spend more per house, someone has to pay. How did the city get money to do this?

Can you tell us more about the successes of Mr. Dora and St. Augustine? Who paid? How do we know the extra cash made the difference?

[Honky Tonk]

The theory sounds great, and certain ties in with my belief that it is equally important to have strong neighborhoods. Making the decision to allocate precious tax dollars to a theory is difficult -- unless is is proven to work or can be tested objectively. Otherwise you're asking taxpayers to increase funding with only a theory.

Who funded this? If you spend more per house, someone has to pay. How did the city get money to do this?

Can you tell us more about the successes of Mr. Dora and St. Augustine? Who paid? How do we know the extra cash made the difference?

Were they the exact set of population type and circumstances?

[Bham1982]

We've been bulldozing them? We may have been talking about bulldozing them. We may have been planning to bulldoze them. We may have even bulldozed some of them.
.

No, we have been bulldozing like mad since 1950. Half of the land within Grand Boulevard was bulldozed, even before the 60's had ended. No city on earth has ever demolished its way to prosperity.

But look around, and I'd say that if we had bulldozed and amputated quick enough, we might have had far fewer to amputate.

Bulldozing has nothing to do with amputation. Doctors amputate in order to block something from spreading. There is not even a hint of a claim that demolishing buildings stops abandonment, scrapping, narcotics activity, suburban flight, or social disorder.

[Honky Tonk]

No, we have been bulldozing like mad since 1950. Half of the land within Grand Boulevard was bulldozed, even before the 60's had ended. No city on earth has ever demolished its way to prosperity.



Bulldozing has nothing to do with amputation. Doctors amputate in order to block something from spreading. There is not even a hint of a claim that demolishing buildings stops abandonment, scrapping, narcotics activity, suburban flight, or social disorder.

What's your idea then? Let the blight stand? Patch it up as best we can and hope that's the next "big thing"? If the "neighborhoods" and not Yuppietown are going to succeed, you're going to need to draw a tax base, people with money. Before we get all hypothetical about the good of mankind, just look where the people with money are living and ask yourself why they're there, and what will it take to get them back here. That's what you aim for.

[Bham1982]

What's your idea then? Let the blight stand? Patch it up as best we can and hope that's the next "big thing"?

I admit I don't have a better idea. I'm not against housing demolition, but I also don't think it's a solution. It's basically the easy way out, because we don't really know what to do with the non-core Detroit neighborhoods.

If the "neighborhoods" and not Yuppietown are going to succeed, you're going to need to draw a tax base, people with money. Before we get all hypothetical about the good of mankind, just look where the people with money are living and ask yourself why they're there, and what will it take to get them back here. That's what you aim for.

I agree with all this, but demolitions will never draw a single yuppie. All you create is urban prairie. And demolitions destroy Detroit's one competitive advantage with the suburbs: the density, urbanity and sense of place inherent in a core city.

[ghettopalmetto]

I admit I don't have a better idea. I'm not against housing demolition, but I also don't think it's a solution. It's basically the easy way out, because we don't really know what to do with the non-core Detroit neighborhoods.

I agree with all this, but demolitions will never draw a single yuppie. All you create is urban prairie. And demolitions destroy Detroit's one competitive advantage with the suburbs: the density, urbanity and sense of place inherent in a core city.

Let's not forget the value that gets destroyed in demolitions. You cannot build a brand-new house of comparable style and square footage for the price that it would cost to repair and restore most of the existing houses. Wherever a city has rebounded, it has done so by retaining old housing and building stock, providing lower financial barriers to redevelopment. This demolition program spends money to raise financial barriers to redevelopment. From a fiscal perspective, it's sheer lunacy.

[Honky Tonk]

I admit I don't have a better idea. I'm not against housing demolition, but I also don't think it's a solution. It's basically the easy way out, because we don't really know what to do with the non-core Detroit neighborhoods.



I agree with all this, but demolitions will never draw a single yuppie. All you create is urban prairie. And demolitions destroy Detroit's one competitive advantage with the suburbs: the density, urbanity and sense of place inherent in a core city.

No, no, no, not burn and run, level and build. Things have come a LONG way as far as design, materials, neighborhood planning, energy efficiency, etc. since the 30's and 40's. Save what's intact for sure, but so much of it in Detroit is not. Even the people left want the City to level the burned out structure "@ the end of the block". Once you have open space, start auditioning for reconstruction.

[ghettopalmetto]

No, no, no, not burn and run, level and build. Things have come a LONG way as far as design, materials, neighborhood planning, energy efficiency, etc. since the 30's and 40's. Save what's intact for sure, but so much of it in Detroit is not. Even the people left want the City to level the burned out structure "@ the end of the block". Once you have open space, start auditioning for reconstruction.

Detroit has done terrific with "levelling" part. The "build" part, which is always promised as a result of levelling, has yet to show its face.

[EASTSIDE CAT 67-83]

bump..kudos

[Bham1982]

No, no, no, not burn and run, level and build. .

Build what, and by whom? There is no market for new housing, or retail, or anything else, in Detroit. Everything built requires subsidies.

And compare stuff built in Detroit in the last 50 years with the older stuff. Invariably, you are destroying urbanity with cheap suburban crap. How are you going to compete with suburbs by creating a ghetto version of suburbia?

Look at the new housing [[already abandoned) built in northern Highland Park. Look at the new shopping center developments [[all half-abandoned, and horrid-looking) on the far East Side. How is more of this crap going to fix Detroit's inherent problems?

[Honky Tonk]

Detroit has done terrific with "levelling" part. The "build" part, which is always promised as a result of levelling, has yet to show its face.

As do the "rehab" people. These structures are caving in on themselves waiting for salvation. The truth is, unless it's an architectural one-design gem, [[eg. The Villages, Boston Edison, Palmer Woods, {though that's not REALLY Detroit}), no one wants to live in these homes. Certainly not the tax base people.

[Honky Tonk]

Build what, and by whom? There is no market for new housing, or retail, or anything else, in Detroit. Everything built requires subsidies.

And compare stuff built in Detroit in the last 50 years with the older stuff. Invariably, you are destroying urbanity with cheap suburban crap. How are you going to compete with suburbs by creating a ghetto version of suburbia?

Look at the new housing [[already abandoned) built in northern Highland Park. Look at the new shopping center developments [[all half-abandoned, and horrid-looking) on the far East Side. How is more of this crap going to fix Detroit's inherent problems?

You're absolutely right. Tell me, which one do you have your eye on to "rehab"? In which neighborhood? Why don't you step up to the plate and get you one of those HP houses? If you don't like any of that "cheap crap", we have plenty of quality, old school, rehabs_ready, just waiting for you in Detroit.

[rex]

bulldoze blighted neighborhoods close to the city core and start over fresh? What can be done to convince people of means and money to build nice homes close to downtown? The area west of downtown is pretty much empty already. A few scattered houses per block. Most of the ones that are left are in ok enough shape. Area could use a concerted effort of new development

[canuck]

Build what, and by whom? There is no market for new housing, or retail, or anything else, in Detroit. Everything built requires subsidies.

And compare stuff built in Detroit in the last 50 years with the older stuff. Invariably, you are destroying urbanity with cheap suburban crap. How are you going to compete with suburbs by creating a ghetto version of suburbia?

Look at the new housing [[already abandoned) built in northern Highland Park. Look at the new shopping center developments [[all half-abandoned, and horrid-looking) on the far East Side. How is more of this crap going to fix Detroit's inherent problems?

I agree with you that design wise, Detroit will need innovative or at least tried and true projects in architecture and urbanization. I dont see the point in trying to replicate suburban design on a new street grid, even if the land is cheap.
The cheapness of land should be a driving force if you look at it from a business perspective when building to a certain scale but...

A major problem is the devaluation of housing to the level of non-investment. It is as if you bought a car and it was worth less when you drive it out of the showroom type of thing.

[TKshreve]

Rebuilt areas:
-Across the Lodge from Motor City Casino - Lot's of housing just popped up in the last 2 years. Not sure about vacancy rates and trajectory, but it's a confined neighborhood.

-Wayburn Street from Mack to Waveny had fresh housing propped up ~8 years ago. Looks like they are filled and the street is well maintained.


While I do agree with the idea that you CANNOT "demo your way to prosperity"..... let's all agree that if we try to rehab our way there that a lot of ramifications are brought into play; the lead one being that these funds will lose efficiency. And again, it is all based on theory as well.

The situation in Youngstown, OH provides a reasonable comparison for Detroit in this regard, although on a smaller scale. Here are a few links addressing similar topics:

http://www.cantonrep.com/newsnow/x19...#axzz2VXxWPErb

http://www.vindy.com/news/2013/mar/27/officials-new-law-will-lessen-city-bligh/

https://www.tribtoday.com/page/conte...ght-grows.html

[begingri]

I thought this was relevant considering the discussion earlier of reusing parts of old Detroit houses. They don't go into the economics of it, but it appears there is still value in these old buildings.

Reclaimed materials from old Detroit buildings finding new life

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz2VgSoEt3X

[Honky Tonk]

I thought this was relevant considering the discussion earlier of reusing parts of old Detroit houses. They don't go into the economics of it, but it appears there is still value in these old buildings.

I thought this too was relevant to the discussion:

"Cops were called after they showed the sick footage to school security.
Officers arrived to find the suspect sitting naked on the ground behind two vacant homes, cuddling his pooch."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...#ixzz2ViMFdC1s

[Richard]

So as this progresses there is a little bit more information out there speculation in The Det News has the amount of $50 million headed to Detroit and who is on first base to collect it to use to clear another 400 blocks of swath?

None other then

Bill Pulte, grandson of the Bill Pulte who founded the nation’s largest home-builder, still sounds confident that he can bring economies of scale to clearing Detroit’s uniquely horrific and vast landscape of vacant houses and land. He’s unabashedly campaigning to win a large chunk of the $100 million in federal funds that Gov. Rick Snyder announced could be used for demolition in four Michigan cities, including Detroit.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz2W8wxwrud

But there are problems with the already cleared plots.

the area is in some ways worse than it was a year ago. The crews left debris that hasn’t been cleared, and have yet to re-seed the area, as promised. “They need to get a tractor out here and clean it up,” McLeskey says, of the remaining rubble and trash.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz2W8xI5LZt

So it is back to instead of stabilization it becomes mass demolition.and who can get their hands on the $50 million first. Nice.

[Richard]

So now the city has made the top of the list of best cities to buy fixer uppers for resell,not buy and hold but buy fix and resell because the market is there.

Kinda dispels the theory of nobody is going to buy anyways because the city is not worth it.

So the opportunity is there ,you have the funds and incentive to pick two non popular neighborhoods and give them a jump start.

Pick a city block in depressed neighborhood and use infill to complete that block and give a 100% tax break to that block for 10 years.

Every other block surrounding that square receives a 60% break for 5 years,creating a tier for the surrounding blocks to encourage growth.

So the funding is there, the incentive is there, I guess the question is if the will is there.

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/9...n.html/?ref=YF