State Joins Blight Fight

[aj3647]

The money actually comes from the feds. If qualified they have to live in their homes another five years and the debt gets forgiven. If they move the debt comes due. Because of infighting with the state, Wayne County and the city, it is rare people qualify.

So spend $50 million to get exactly five years of "neighborhood stability." Five years, and then people can jump ship without their mortgage debt hanging over their heads. And I'd imagine quite a few people would jump ship, what with being surrounded by abandoned houses that nobody is doing anything about... By 2018, we'd be back to square one after applying a $50 million band-aid.

[DetroitPlanner]

So apparently only 4,000 buildings will be demolished.

http://www.freep.com/article/2013082...lition-Detroit

Thats about right. As I mentioned earlier its about $10k for the small houses and about $15k for the big ones.

[iheartthed]

Novine, you expressed this same sentiment in the Brightmoor thread. Helping people stay in their homes is altruistic. However, how does the state get back the money that it gives to homeowners in trouble? I'm curious as to how this works.

How much does the state get back for a house they pay to have demolished?

[iheartthed]

The $30K may have been the rule for houses w bsmt that had to be removed and hauled away. Until recently. I believe they now can shovel debris into basement and mound over. This might make the $10-15K more realistic. In that case, the $52m will cover 3500 houses. Still a long way to get the city looking ruin-free...

Yeah, the city will be a ruin-free 130 square mile prairie. Then the development and population will come rushing back...

[DetroitPlanner]

So spend $50 million to get exactly five years of "neighborhood stability." Five years, and then people can jump ship without their mortgage debt hanging over their heads. And I'd imagine quite a few people would jump ship, what with being surrounded by abandoned houses that nobody is doing anything about... By 2018, we'd be back to square one after applying a $50 million band-aid.

Abandoned homes cause a huge amount of damage besides housing values. Ask any cop or fireman if he would want these addressed from their professional perspective. They will answer "Heck yeah!" Imagine having to live next to one and not knowing that if a firebug or a drug dealer was going to take it over. They rid the areas of crime as the criminals have less places to hide. It is not a 5-year cycle, but a quality of life issue with immediate benefits.

[mwilbert]

Yeah, the city will be a ruin-free 130 square mile prairie. Then the development and population will come rushing back...

The sad thing is that it would. It isn't as if people who don't like Detroit have an aversion to the underlying land. They have an aversion to what's on top of the land. If you cleared most of Detroit, it would be like any exurban prairie. I admit there are some brownfield issues, but that would probably be largely offset by the better location.

[DetroitPlanner]

Although Downtown is doing well, it bothers me that that city has lost so about 90% of its architectural continuity. This is one of the reasons cities such as Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Ann Arbor and even St. Louis among many others are considered more desirable than Detroit.

You forgot Novi and Wixom. Historic housing is not the reason why Detroit is not desirable. It has more to do with crime and schools. Lets not kid ourselves.

[mikeg19]

It seems like a lot of people on here didn't read the previous articles on this subject or ignored the fact that this is federal money that was previously earmarked for helping people with foreclosure issues in distressed cities. What the cities have basically said is that the money was languishing and would be more well spent demolishing abandoned structures. This money can't be reallocated however the city feels.

[renf]

Today's Freep story implies that the actual cost of demolition will average
$13,000 per structure. Is that reasonable? I thought that the city
elders in Hamtramck, about a year ago, held a contest to see with a
cash prize to the organization that could demolish abandoned homes
at the lowest cost and still comply with environmental and safety
regulations. Does anyone have any recollection of that and the
minimal cost of demolishing a residential structure?

[Wesley Mouch]

Although Downtown is doing well, it bothers me that that city has lost so about 90% of its architectural continuity. ...snip

Architectural continuity? What on earth are you talking about? No. Stop continuity. Stop architects. They're the ones that brought us the MacNamara building style concrete wonders with those empty plazas in front. Or Portman and his unnavigable pop cans in Detroit, Atlanta, and LA.

You want discontinuity. Look at PPG place in Pittsburgh. Glass palace stuck right in the middle of a storefront neighborhood. Wonderful. It worked because nobody tried to make architectural continuity.

Build buildings that work well with people of high quality, and it'll turn out fine. But don't let architects make continuity. You get Hart Plaza, not Belle Isle -- oops, I guess sometimes an Olmsted can overcome. So maybe I'm just all wrong. Happened once before.

[313WX]

Architectural continuity? What on earth are you talking about? No. Stop continuity. Stop architects. They're the ones that brought us the MacNamara building style concrete wonders with those empty plazas in front. Or Portman and his unnavigable pop cans in Detroit, Atlanta, and LA.

You want discontinuity. Look at PPG place in Pittsburgh. Glass palace stuck right in the middle of a storefront neighborhood. Wonderful. It worked because nobody tried to make architectural continuity.

Build buildings that work well with people of high quality, and it'll turn out fine. But don't let architects make continuity. You get Hart Plaza, not Belle Isle -- oops, I guess sometimes an Olmsted can overcome. So maybe I'm just all wrong. Happened once before.

What the hell are you talking about?

I'm pretty sure illwill's point was that Detroit's biggest drawback is the fact that its neighborhoods have so many missing teeth, and that's actually a fair point. Each building that's demolished is just another missing tooth. The lack of critical mass may certainly be a turn off to those who would otherwise stay in/move to Detroit [[definitely for me). Not everyone wants to live in an environment surrounded by urban prairies.

[Novine]

"It seems like a lot of people on here didn't read the previous articles on this subject or ignored the fact that this is federal money that was previously earmarked for helping people with foreclosure issues in distressed cities. What the cities have basically said is that the money was languishing and would be more well spent demolishing abandoned structures. This money can't be reallocated however the city feels."

The money is languishing? If you said, the cities and state didn't make an effort to help out homeowners in need, that would be an accurate representation at what's happened with these funds. Other communities nationwide are actually using those funds to help homeowners. But not in Michigan and Detroit.

[Novine]

"It is not a 5-year cycle, but a quality of life issue with immediate benefits."

Kind of like in Vietnam when they would destroy a village to save it.

[Richard]

"It seems like a lot of people on here didn't read the previous articles on this subject or ignored the fact that this is federal money that was previously earmarked for helping people with foreclosure issues in distressed cities. What the cities have basically said is that the money was languishing and would be more well spent demolishing abandoned structures. This money can't be reallocated however the city feels."

The money is languishing? If you said, the cities and state didn't make an effort to help out homeowners in need, that would be an accurate representation at what's happened with these funds. Other communities nationwide are actually using those funds to help homeowners. But not in Michigan and Detroit.

These funds were made available a few years back then frozen.

What the original intent was.

Neighborhood stabilization [[kinda like what the city already had but sent back for non use of.)

NS includes the boarding and maintenance of vacant properties to prevent future decline.

Leagle aid to those in danger of losing their home.

Educating home owners on payment options and helping them navigate or prevent the foreclosure process.

Three fold attack,stabilize the neighborhood and keep people in their home to prevent further blight and to stabilize property values.

Frozen why?

Because at first cities were using the funds for propping up their budget shortfalls or not following the intent.

The banks meantime made it hard to rework mortgages and started robo signing foreclosures.

The funds can be used for demolition as it is considered part of neighborhood stabilization,but use them for 100% demolition or for commercial demolition without thought towards any other of the guidelines and a year from now you are going to be doing the same thing others cities are,paying back uncle sam for misappropriated funds.

NSP funds may be used for activities which include, but are not limited to:

• Establish financing mechanisms for purchase and redevelopment of foreclosed homes and residential properties;
• Purchase and rehabilitate homes and residential properties abandoned or foreclosed;
• Establish land banks for foreclosed homes;
• Demolish blighted structures;
• Redevelop demolished or vacant properties

You are now into NSP 3 ,in 2010 under NSP 2 the city was allocated 40 million dollars,what happened and how was it spent?

9 million plus was spent on administrative costs alone so somebody got paid 9 million dollars not to improve the city.

This is why the neighborhoods are being wasted,nobody can say it is because the city is broke because the funds have been there year after year to keep this from happening,so why is it happening?

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?...orhoodspg/nsp3



Demo map here

http://www.detroitmi.gov/Departments...litionMap.aspx

[wolverine]

Although Downtown is doing well, it bothers me that that city has lost so about 90% of its architectural continuity. This is one of the reasons cities such as Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Ann Arbor and even St. Louis among many others are considered more desirable than Detroit. As time goes on, other cities will become unique and more in demand because of their historic housing stock. As much as people want to move to the city of Detroit, the neighborhoods have been decimated. I personally LOVE architecture and I want to live in a city that has a unique stock of housing. Detroit has so few neighborhoods left and I think most of the unique neighborhoods are already filled to capacity. Yes, there are tens of thousands of homes available but they're either plain-jane post WW2 style-homes or they sit on a block standing alone, maybe with a hand full of other homes that "might" be salvaged at some point. No architectural continuity. It makes it hard for people seeking unique neighborhoods in the city.

One other thing...as I was driving down W. Grand River going to the Lions game, we saw another huge unique building being demolished. The White shiny brick building on the West side of the street. The city is STILL tearing these beautiful structures down.

But I understand it's life or death in most case due to the dangers that lurk. But it's just so sad.

I tend to agree and of course a city can't be a city without buildings right?

But there's not much you can do to rehabilitate the type of building stock in Detroit at an affordable price. Most are wood frame structures with brick veneers. They can't stand long after years of neglect and water damage. It's different from other cities where homes are constructed of load bearing masonry and require a lesser degree of structural overhaul and stabilization. Even if you do the rehab yourself, it's still going to cost tens of thousands to get these home habitable, clean and safe.

I've accepted at this point Detroit will retain a few signature historic neighborhoods, but the rest will be modern housing.

[Wesley Mouch]

What the hell are you talking about?
...snip...

Ah, nothing at all. Just sometimes you gotta rant.

[Lily]

http://www.freep.com/article/2013082...lition-Detroit

About 4,000 homes coming down. $52 million / 4,000 = $13,000 per home.

52 million to demolish 4000 homes. How can this be possible?

[313WX]

I tend to agree and of course a city can't be a city without buildings right?

But there's not much you can do to rehabilitate the type of building stock in Detroit at an affordable price. Most are wood frame structures with brick veneers. They can't stand long after years of neglect and water damage. It's different from other cities where homes are constructed of load bearing masonry and require a lesser degree of structural overhaul and stabilization. Even if you do the rehab yourself, it's still going to cost tens of thousands to get these home habitable, clean and safe.

I've accepted at this point Detroit will retain a few signature historic neighborhoods, but the rest will be modern housing.

You make some fair points as well, but a couple things.

1. We don't build cities like we did before the automobile. As a result, IF much of Detroit's vacant land is re-developed, the neighborhood won't resemble anything like the neighborhood that was demolished, but rather some place in Novi or Sterling Heights, especially if the development in Jefferson Village is any sign. Part of the city's charm of course is the fact that it has an environment uniquely different from what is offered in the suburbs. Eliminating more of this and putting what's in the suburbs in its place diminishes Detroit's appeal for some.

2. Detroit just has SO MUCH vacant land already. Never mind the 80,000 additional structure that MUST come down, no ifs, ands or buts. Realistically, much of this land will never be redeveloped, even if you buy the extremely optimistic prediction that Detroit as a whole will start growing again in 5-10 years. So even if you accept that only a few of Detroit's historic neighborhoods will retain their integrity, the fact of the matter is whatever Detroit supposedly grows from the ashes will look nothing like the great city it was of the 20th century. Instead, Detroit will probably be more like a modern-day Atlanta.

[royce]

313WX, you are correct in saying that if, and that's a big if, vacant residential land is redeveloped it will look like the suburbs. However, what really needs to be considered by future stakeholders in Detroit is, "Do we really want to follow this model?" Each region of the country has its "reasons" for building up its major cities the way that it has-geography, politics, population needs, etc.... For future Detroit, what "reasons" will shape future development?

Although I'm not an absolute fan of the "east coast" row-house style of development, I definitely favor it as the style of development that should go in Midtown and in some parts of Downtown Detroit. In my opinion, if the city wants to populate the center-city beyond apartment dwellers, then row-houses or brownstones will definitely be the order of the day if the city wants to keep those current apartment dwellers from leaving to the suburbs for a house when they get tired of apartment living.

The Crosswinds development kinda got it right with the building of their townhouses in Brush Park. However, a true east coast row/town house has residents living next to each other not above or below each other. The development that Crosswinds actually did on Woodward north of New Center is what should go in Midtown, but with better aesthetics.

As for the rest of the city, vacant land could be used for many different activities, some not associated with city living but ways of using the vacant land. Obviously urban farms is the popular choice for reusing vacant land. However, I can imagine a few others. For example, the clearing of land in Brightmoor could lead to constructing a man-made lake used for fishing or water-skiing. Or, put some deer in there and offer bow hunting during hunting season [[I'm not suggesting putting the deer in the lake).

In other areas of the city more man-made lakes could be constructed where some could be built with beaches for swimming. Eventually, people will want to build houses around these man-made lakes.

Another use of the vacant land could come in the form of snow skiing. Digging up all of that land for the lakes could create ski hills [[think land fill hills without the rotting garbage below. Since Detroit has very long and cold winters, creating skiing activities could bring in skiing enthusiasts from around the world and create a new economy with thousands of jobs for Metro Detroiters.

I know these ideas for using vacant land in Detroit are out there, but the reality is Detroit will be a much smaller city in the future and people will chose to live only in a few places. Using the land in different ways to generate economic activity is what people should be thinking about as a way to keep Detroit viable in the future.

[downtownguy]

Ah, nothing at all. Just sometimes you gotta rant.

Sometimes?

[Packman41]

Today's Freep story implies that the actual cost of demolition will average $13,000 per structure. Is that reasonable? <..snip..>

Does it cost $13,000?? Well, yes about that when the CofD does it. But, this guy was able to cut the cost in half and do it quicker too.

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/21...o-fight-blight

“The mission of the Detroit Blight Authority is to fight blight by tearing down hundreds of abandoned homes, cleaning up the city, and recycling [80% debris is recycled], instead of creating costs by piling onto landfills. …The Detroit Blight Authority completes projects in high volume, so that Detroit benefits from a low cost, higher impact ratio. …The approach is different because the company is not contracting at one house here and there. The cost was lower to complete the project in 10 days.”

"The idea would be to take this model and scale it across the rest of the city. We'd be able to do it for half the cost of what it would be proposed to remove blight from the entire city and we'd also be able to do it in five years," said Pulte.”

Or go here and watch the video.

http://www.freep.com/article/2013070...pital-Partners

I wish I could find the other article I read that described [[in detail) how they were able to save costs at each point in the process. IIRC, the CofD permits alone to apply for and then demo a house was over $1,500.

And when a demolishing a home or building you are NOT permitted to leave the foundation and push the fill into it. This cause environmental issues and future marketability of the site.

[Honky Tonk]

Does it cost $13,000?? Well, yes about that when the CofD does it. But, this guy was able to cut the cost in half and do it quicker too.

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/21...o-fight-blight

“The mission of the Detroit Blight Authority is to fight blight by tearing down hundreds of abandoned homes, cleaning up the city, and recycling [80% debris is recycled], instead of creating costs by piling onto landfills. …The Detroit Blight Authority completes projects in high volume, so that Detroit benefits from a low cost, higher impact ratio. …The approach is different because the company is not contracting at one house here and there. The cost was lower to complete the project in 10 days.”

"The idea would be to take this model and scale it across the rest of the city. We'd be able to do it for half the cost of what it would be proposed to remove blight from the entire city and we'd also be able to do it in five years," said Pulte.”

Or go here and watch the video.

http://www.freep.com/article/2013070...pital-Partners

I wish I could find the other article I read that described [[in detail) how they were able to save costs at each point in the process. IIRC, the CofD permits alone to apply for and then demo a house was over $1,500.

And when a demolishing a home or building you are NOT permitted to leave the foundation and push the fill into it. This cause environmental issues and future marketability of the site.

It's obscene that he was able to do it for $5K a house, $7K a house less, over 40% savings, or an additional 16K demolished structures. I wonder why it costs the City an additional 40% to demo these structures? I guess it's Ok, though, it's only taxpayer money.

[DetroitPlanner]

A lot of the savings the Bill's blight authority gets is from pre-planning. They will pick an area and move all the equipment to the spot and remove all the blight that they can before moving onto another area. It cost money to mobilize heavy equipment, you lose days of productivity when you move it too much over big distances.

Another way they save is through recycling, no reason to pay a landfill when you can give it away to someone who will cart it away for free, who knows with some of it they may be able to make a few bucks, though I doubt it, all of the really valuable stuff has been probably stripped by the scrappers.

[Honky Tonk]

A lot of the savings the Bill's blight authority gets is from pre-planning. They will pick an area and move all the equipment to the spot and remove all the blight that they can before moving onto another area. It cost money to mobilize heavy equipment, you lose days of productivity when you move it too much over big distances.

Another way they save is through recycling, no reason to pay a landfill when you can give it away to someone who will cart it away for free, who knows with some of it they may be able to make a few bucks, though I doubt it, all of the really valuable stuff has been probably stripped by the scrappers.

P-r-e-p-l-a-n-n-i-n-g. Have the City Fathers heard of this concept?

[wolverine]

You make some fair points as well, but a couple things.

1. We don't build cities like we did before the automobile. As a result, IF much of Detroit's vacant land is re-developed, the neighborhood won't resemble anything like the neighborhood that was demolished, but rather some place in Novi or Sterling Heights, especially if the development in Jefferson Village is any sign. Part of the city's charm of course is the fact that it has an environment uniquely different from what is offered in the suburbs. Eliminating more of this and putting what's in the suburbs in its place diminishes Detroit's appeal for some.

2. Detroit just has SO MUCH vacant land already. Never mind the 80,000 additional structure that MUST come down, no ifs, ands or buts. Realistically, much of this land will never be redeveloped, even if you buy the extremely optimistic prediction that Detroit as a whole will start growing again in 5-10 years. So even if you accept that only a few of Detroit's historic neighborhoods will retain their integrity, the fact of the matter is whatever Detroit supposedly grows from the ashes will look nothing like the great city it was of the 20th century. Instead, Detroit will probably be more like a modern-day Atlanta.

The situation you describe of cities not being built like they used to is a result of zoning in Detroit as well as very low land values. Have a place with high desirability and you will receive dense development and rear facing or underground garages. You are right, low density construction that resembles some Detroit's exurban suburbs is probably what you'd receive in most parts away from the core.

But it's a lose - lose situation. You should all know better than I do that the wood frame buildings in your city simply can only go so many years unchecked. And even if weather and neglect weren't the issues, scrapping and arson is far worse. The shell and bones of these homes, while impressive can easily be duplicated, but the expensive plumbing, heating, electrical, windows, fixtures, and finishes are far more costly to replace. There's no chance you could set aside any money to mothball houses and keep the scrappers away.

There was a shred of hope when the city of Chicago set a precedent and decided to make mortgage holders responsible like home owners to abide by the same vacant property ordinances, which are extremely strict and heavily enforced in the city. A federal judge said no. The ruling said that having companies abide by such a local ordinance would create an impermissible tax on the federal government! Had the ordinance been upheld in Chicago, the city of Detroit would have scored big on its fight of blight. All foreclosed homes would have had to been protected and maintained just like any other active property, and demolitions would have to be approved by the city. As would expect, like in Detroit, the homes in Chicago that are the poorest maintained are not surprisingly held by banks....and they totally get away with it.

So bottom line is either tear down or let it fall down. I totally agree that these losses can be devastating to the historic fabric of the city. Detroit can build the type of architectural stock of any city, but no city can build like Detroit did.