Proposal N would mean tearing down 8K homes...

**iheartthed** · September-08-20, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by ndavies

The real problem is the overwhelming size of the issue.

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.

Sounds like landbanks aren't the solution to revitalizing the city then?

I would suggest that the city [[and region) address the actual problem, which has been obvious for decades: sprawl.

**Wesley Mouch** · September-09-20, 01:25 AM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Sounds like landbanks aren't the solution to revitalizing the city then?

I would suggest that the city [[and region) address the actual problem, which has been obvious for decades: sprawl.

Me? Not much of a sprawl guy. I like my Hamtramck better than Troy.

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.

**iheartthed** · September-09-20, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Me? Not much of a sprawl guy. I like my Hamtramck better than Troy.

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.

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.

**Onthe405** · September-09-20, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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.

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.

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.

**iheartthed** · September-09-20, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Onthe405

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.

**ABetterDetroit** · September-09-20, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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.

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.

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.

**iheartthed** · September-09-20, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit

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...

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.

**bust** · September-18-20, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit

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.

And stop pitting county against county, and township against city.
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.

**Danny** · September-13-20, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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.

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.

**Dumpling** · September-13-20, 08:19 AM

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/

**Danny** · September-13-20, 09:23 AM

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.

**bust** · September-18-20, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpling

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/

Thanks for sharing this.
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?

**bust** · September-18-20, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Me? Not much of a sprawl guy. I like my Hamtramck better than Troy.

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.

This is ridiculous.
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.

**LongGone06** · September-27-20, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by bust

This is ridiculous.
The cost differential between Portand and Detroit / Hamtramck has nothing to do with any regulations about sprawl.

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.

**Vic01** · September-27-20, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by LongGone06

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.

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.
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.