Quote Originally Posted by mwilbert View Post
I see your point but I don't agree with it. As far as I can see, people generally agree that Midtown is safer than most of the rest of the city at least partially because the WSU police help keep it that way. I'm reasonably sure HFH police currently patrol their own area. New buildings require a tiny fraction of the fire protection resources of old [[and abandoned) ones; it is hard to imagine this will be a significant drain on the fire department.

I think your point about mega-developments being hard to reuse is valid, but it seems to me as if hospital spaces are inherently difficult to reuse.
This is the upside of density. Developing 10 blighted homes on Canfield will require no increase in police and fire services. In fact, you could argue that re-development in this location will actually reduce demand for city services as occupied homes in a stable neighborhood are less likely to attract crime.

This phenomenon is a real-life illustration of the economic conundrum Detroit faces. Those people in stable neighborhoods will decrease their need for city services by attracting new residents. These new residents will also increase the tax revenue coming into the city. More money to work with, less problems to spend the money on. This is the upward spiral.

In comparison, look at the problem you deal with in 48205. For every abandoned home, it attracts crime and criminals. This simultaneously increases the need for police and fire while losing tax revenue [[assuming they were paying). The blighted neighborhood only encourages those who can leave to move away, creating more blight, attracting more crime, requiring more city services, and decreasing tax revenue.

The only people who are left are those who are either causing the problems or are too poor to leave. Both of these are the people who require the most support -- financial or otherwise -- from the city.

What's the solution? You need to get everyone to move out of those declining neighborhoods into areas of stability and density. Is that fair? Is that right? Is that ideal? Is that exciting and inspiring? Should we treat those people with compassion for their suffering? Should we avoid being heavy handed with the people who have been most damaged by this process?

All of those are important questions. But they're secondary to the primary question, which is, how do we stop the bleeding?