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

**ABetterDetroit** · September-09-20, 02:19 AM

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.

**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.

**Luke09** · September-09-20, 02:23 PM

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.

**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.

**EastsideAl** · September-09-20, 05:45 PM

At some point the solution to Detroit's difficulties has to be something other than slowly tearing the city down.

**DeLemur** · September-11-20, 07:22 PM

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.

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?....

I'm over the intense emphasis on development. Time for Duggan to get back to quality of life for people.

**401don** · September-12-20, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Luke09

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.

Sounds like you're ready to write a check?

**Danny** · September-13-20, 07:37 AM

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!

**Dan Wesson** · September-13-20, 07:45 AM

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.”

**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, 08:02 AM

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.

**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.

**Dumpling** · September-13-20, 10:15 AM

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.

**motorcity** · September-13-20, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpling

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.

**Dumpling** · September-13-20, 11:33 AM

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.

**motorcity** · September-13-20, 11:36 AM

"$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.

**Dumpling** · September-13-20, 12:13 PM

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.

**Richard** · September-13-20, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by motorcity

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.

I was licensed building contractor for over 30 years,looks like I could have been a bazillionair in Detroit.

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.

**softailrider** · September-14-20, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpling

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.

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.

**Dumpling** · September-17-20, 09:48 AM

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.