I saw this online and thought of Detroit... I don't think it's a bad idea if planned and executed properly.
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/mich...go-back-nature
I saw this online and thought of Detroit... I don't think it's a bad idea if planned and executed properly.
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/mich...go-back-nature
There are already multiple threads on the forum about so-called 'right-sizing'.
If they clear out land, it should be set aside for technology districts. Each district would be for a certain emerging sector. One technology district could be agriculture. Other districts could be for Health Care, IT, Finance, Defense Advanced Manufacturing, Movie Production...etc. So, when you drive I-94 you can read signs on the highway for exists to the IT District or Movie Production District...It could be like a huge corporate parkway or Airport terminal with signs directing you to different Tech Districts.
This would probably be the fruition of the fears being perpetuated by groups like BAMN. This is in no way meant to demonize their group, but what you don't want to have happen is for the people to be moved out only to have people who will only look to work in the areas, instead of live in them. People would have a fit as the jobs that would come would be impossible for many of them to fill. I'm not saying the high-tech jobs shouldn't come; just that they should do it in existing, mostly-empty buildings downtown.Quote:
Originally Posted by Newdetroit
I like your ideas, but I think it would be equally awesome if the same thing existed along one of the radial streets coming out of downtown, or that each one would head out on a separate street.
"Should We Bulldoze Underused Neighborhoods and Return Them to Nature?"
Yes. Many of these neighborhoods are already returning to nature, anyway.
Yeah, let's turn Detroit into empty land so we can rebuild Troy on it. You know how all of America is flocking to places like Troy these days ...
Detroit could use more bike paths, greenways, well-maintained public parks, and some forest areas besides Belle Isle...
Parks and greenpaths don't employ a city that is half-unemployed or increase the city's GDP. There is rouge park.
Here is my idea why not clear out sections of the city that are almost empty anyway then give the land to developers. But make them build homes or buildings on them within 2 years or they revert back to the city. This way the city makes money from building permits, future taxes, revenue from workers building the structures etc.
There is no point in letting the land go back to nature. Detroit needs to be working to get the city to grow. If a developer wants to take 10 blocks and make a semi gated or even gated community within the city let them. Let them make subdivisions in Detroit. That is the way housing developments are now a days not just blocks and blocks of home like the way Detroit is now.
That sounds great but Detroit is broke and can't even afford new ambulances. Even if you had all the money needed, you wouldn't be able to get through all layers of bureacracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypestyles
Why would you waste any valuable resource?
Why would you just concede that human habitation of a place is out of the question?
Build on what you have.
Lastly, consider that you are dictating where PEOPLE, real live human persons, can live. You wanna force people to move because some government planner thinks that their inner city neighborhood is better suited for nature or a farm or corporate parkway or whatever? Good luck with that-- besides possibly being illegal [[County of Wayne v. Hathcock), it's just plain not nice. Consider the human needs of those who are still in 'underused' neighborhoods.
It would be really sad to force people to leave their homes. They must like it there if they have stayed while 95% of the population has left. However, the fact is that the rest of the residents of the city are paying for the services these people receive. It must be incredibly expensive to provide, garbage pick-up, snow plowing, water and sewage and electricity to these homes. At some point, it become a community decision not an individual decision unless they want to pay the real cost themselves which might double or triple their taxes. Why not just give them a nicer home that can be had for $20- $40,000 in an inhabited neighbourhood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mackinaw
Moving people out is mean to real human beings??? Well then I suggest that you walk everywhere you go and avoid major Freeways and roads which were built by using eminent domain and removing homes in the way. Cities have forcibly acquired land for the good of the city. In terms of Constitutional law, eminent domain is a power that resides in the state to take private property away with just compensation and for a public purpose.
You mentioned Wayne v. Hathcock..I am actually an attorney myself...So let me indulge myself.... If I was representing the City of Detroit, I would say BULLDOZE 1/3 the city NOW!!! I direct you to the following case:
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 [[2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan which promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues. The Court held in a 5–4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
It went to the US SUPREME COURT! AND?????????
On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, ruled in favor of the City of New London. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion setting out a more detailed standard for judicial review of economic development takings than that found in Stevens's majority opinion. In so doing, Justice Kennedy contributed to the Court's trend of turning minimum scrutiny—the idea that government policy need only bear a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose—into a fact-based test.
In Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 US 229 [[1984), the Court had said that the government purpose under minimum scrutiny need only be "conceivable." In two 1996 cases the Court clarified that concept. In Romer v. Evans, 517 US 620, the Court said that the government purpose must be "independent and legitimate." And in United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, the Court said the government purpose "must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation." Thus, the Court made it clear that, in the scrutiny regime established in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 US 379 [[1937), government purpose is a question of fact for the trier of fact.
Kennedy fleshed out this doctrine in his Kelo concurring opinion; he sets out a program of civil discovery in the context of a challenge to an assertion of government purpose. However, he does not explicitly limit these criteria to eminent domain, nor to minimum scrutiny, suggesting that they may be generalized to all health and welfare regulation in the scrutiny regime. Because Kennedy signed on to the Court's majority opinion, his concurrence is not binding on lower courts. He wrote:
A court confronted with a plausible accusation of impermissible favoritism to private parties should [conduct]….a careful and extensive inquiry into ‘whether, in fact, the development plan [chronology] [1.] is of primary benefit to . . . the developer…, and private businesses which may eventually locate in the plan area…, [2.] and in that regard, only of incidental benefit to the city…[.]’" Kennedy is also interested in facts of the chronology which show, with respect to government, [3.] awareness of…depressed economic condition and evidence corroborating the validity of this concern…, [4.] the substantial commitment of public funds…before most of the private beneficiaries were known…, [5.] evidence that [government] reviewed a variety of development plans…[,] [6.] [government] chose a private developer from a group of applicants rather than picking out a particular transferee beforehand and… [7.] other private beneficiaries of the project [were]…unknown [to government] because the…space proposed to be built [had] not yet been rented….Kelo v. City of New London did not establish entirely new law concerning eminent domain. Although the decision was controversial, it was not the first time “public use” had been interpreted by the Supreme Court as “public purpose.” In the majority opinion, Justice Stevens wrote the "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public" [[545 U.S. 469). Thus precedent played an important role in the 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court. The Fifth Amendment was interpreted the same way as in Midkiff [[467 U.S. 229) and other earlier eminent domain cases.
Isn't that bulldozed site in CT still empty?Quote:
Originally Posted by Newdetroit
Not sure. But cleared out land looks better than abandoned home, burnt out homes, crack houses, prostitution dens, and the rest. Also, let's not forget something that is also important. 50-60% of Detroit's population are renters. And yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RENTERS should not dictate to the city that the city should not clear out areas for economic development. Now all that being said, I do believe that there are many decent people who are home ownere and are attached to their houses/"homes." Well, Detroit is in a situation that is requires people to move on with their emotional attachments to current homes. Most people, not all, have moved from one house to another some time in life...So, let's move on so the city could move on...If not, they can continue to live in blighted poverty stricken ares rife with crime.
Yes...........
Yes..........
Yes, if you mean those unfinished developments in the exurbs.
The clips of the downtown skyline shown on the NBC nightly news last night from the vantage point of the "cleared out" Rivertown area didn't look so flattering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Newdetroit
The land looks so much better without those pesky "people" and their "homes" on it. Sheesh ...