Why should we care if buildings in disrepair burn?

Some of you may have heard about South Fulton, TN. Its city-funded fire department provides services to city residents and provides services to Obion county residents who pay subscription fee.

This set up is common in rural areas where the outlying municipalities can't afford to fund a fire department. If a non-subscription paying county resident calls the fire department, the fire department will respond to make sure no human life is in danger. Then they let the house burn. [[If the neighbor is a subscription paying resident, the fire department will protect the neighbor's house from the fire spreading).

Detroit should do something similar. If a condemned house [[or some other criteria, like delinquent property taxes?) structure is on fire, other than saving human life and protecting non-condemned structures, the DFD should let the structure burn. Thoughts?

I was under the impression that that is the current policy. It was announced a few months ago and it created a lot of controversy.

The policy here is to let a clearly abandoned house burn when the chief at the scene determines there is no danger to surrounding buildings.

I can't see how that policy described by jolla would work in a big city. How do you determine if a house has delinquent property taxes while a fire is raging and people could be inside? Detroit has a huge problem with public safety response, and that problem is likely to grow more severe as cuts are made to fix the finances. But I'm not sure that's even a partial solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azafran

How do you determine if a house has delinquent property taxes while a fire is raging and people could be inside?

---

How does South Fulton, TN do it?

The real question is why would Detroit follow the lead of South Fulton, TN?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The real question is why would Detroit follow the lead of South Fulton, TN?

---

You're right; Detroit has it all figured out. Why improve on perfection?

Abandonded, run-down houses are bad for the city. They provide places for criminal activity, they are set on fire, they pose a danger to kids, and they lower property values of the occupied houses. And really, they just make Detroit look like a craphole where no one [[who has other options) would want to live.

Detroit needs money. Lower taxes on existing occupied homes and deterring people from moving in is NOT the way to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jolla

You're right; Detroit has it all figured out. Why improve on perfection?

---

Don't be dense. The question isn't "why would Detroit look to other places for solutions to its problems," the question is "what reason do we have to think that the problems of Detroit and the problems of some random small town in the rural South are remotely comparable?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jolla

You're right; Detroit has it all figured out. Why improve on perfection?

---

Now you're putting words in my mouth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jolla

Abandonded, run-down houses are bad for the city. They provide places for criminal activity, they are set on fire, they pose a danger to kids, and they lower property values of the occupied houses. And really, they just make Detroit look like a craphole where no one [[who has other options) would want to live.

---

Yet, burnt out carcasses of houses and buildings is supposed to do the opposite?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jolla

Detroit needs money. Lower taxes on existing occupied homes and deterring people from moving in is NOT the way to go.

---

Which assumes that taxes are the reason people are leaving Detroit in droves...

Why should a city as big as Detroit follow the lead of a city that had 2,517 people living in it's 3.1 square miles in 2000? Detroit has around 700,000 people living in a city that has 139 square miles.

We should secure and rehabilitate abandoned buildings, not destroy them or allow them to be destroyed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1953

We should secure and rehabilitate abandoned buildings, not destroy them or allow them to be destroyed.

---

The ones that aren't too far gone, yes.

If they took away the tax loophole and went after the speculators and enforced the laws already on the books would this even be an issue ? Proactive or reactive which one is less costly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1953

We should secure and rehabilitate abandoned buildings, not destroy them or allow them to be destroyed.

---

In this particular city, in this economic climate, that's a pipe dream.