Bham, abandoned, dilapidated homes - at the least - are fire hazards, encourage neighborhood rodent/pest infestations, and lower property values. Even in a crime free community, I would say that's almost always true.

Beyond that, abandoned homes may house irresponsible squatters/drug dealers, serve as a place to engage in illicit activity, and demoralize a community. You can argue that isn't the case, but we all know those things do happen.

Ask yourself a question: would you live on a block littered with abandoned, structurally unsound homes? And if so, do you really believe that you'd resist demolition? After, say, watching your kids play in front of an abandoned house as rats or mice scurry about? Or knowing that teenagers occasionally burn down abandoned homes for "fun"?

I agree that the bombed out communities are, in a sense, safer than some of Detroit's more notorious highly populated neighborhood. But only because there are less people. Everyone moved out to get away from the abandoned homes, seeking a more a stable neighborhood. Unfortunately, however, some don't have enough money to keep up with sprawl.

Quote Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
But do you think for a moment that gentrified/gentrifying neighborhoods in Chicago, Philadelphia, Brooklyn, DC, and even Cleveland all had virgin greenfield land with stellar services before people decided to move in?

None of those cities were as bad as Detroit is. There exists, eventually, a point of no return for certain neighborhoods.

And Cleveland has yet to bottom out. While viable neighborhoods will be saved, it too has doomed neighborhoods.