Duggan outlines plans for 'one city for all of us' and new blight-fighting effort

I just got through reading this article in the Freep:

http://www.freep.com/story/money/bus...ght/359771001/

His 8 principles really got to me:

1. Everyone is welcome in our city.
2. Detroit won’t support development if it displaces current Detroit residents.
3. The city will fight economic segregation by pushing jobs into all neighborhoods.
4. Blight removal is critical.
5. Detroit will create walkable neighborhoods.
6. Those who stayed will have a voice.
7. Jobs and opportunities are available first to Detroiters.
8. The riverfront is for everyone

I'm not sure what response that Coleman A Young Jr. will give to this, but if he wants to make it pass August, he better have a good one.

Great points. Post bankruptcy, and with downtown and midtown going gangbusters, the Mayor really is turning attention to other areas of the city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast

Great points. Post bankruptcy, and with downtown and midtown going gangbusters, the Mayor really is turning attention to other areas of the city.

---

Agree and remember, if one heard the Mayor speak at the announcement of the nearly 700 housing units, he was very clear that he wants housing in District Detroit [[and elsewhere) at all price points. He was not interested in having only high income/high asset residents in the area.

Those who say the the areas near LCA, Brush Park, etc. will be nothing but 'yuppieland' do not understand how the city with properties with HUD monies can bring about a mix of housing rents.

If Gilbert, Ilitch, etc. are using THEIR monies alone they can pretty much do what they want but not all that property in Brush Park doesn't come without strings.

He is a politician that is up for reelection,if that line is followed then growth is limited to HUD and local taxpayers,when those funds run out then development stops.

No private investor is going to self fund a project and take a 20% bath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

He is a politician that is up for reelection,if that line is followed then growth is limited to HUD and local taxpayers,when those funds run out then development stops.

No private investor is going to self fund a project and take a 20% bath.

---

Agree, but there are plenty of rehabs where tax credits may come into play and those can involve various rental prices.

I have no problem with a $700 rental at Hotel Americana and say a 3K rental at the Hudson's site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

He is a politician that is up for reelection,if that line is followed then growth is limited to HUD and local taxpayers,when those funds run out then development stops.

No private investor is going to self fund a project and take a 20% bath.

---

Capital only cares about the final numbers and the project as a whole.

20% percent of units can lose X amount as long as the other 80% covers that X loss and a sufficient return on the investment.

Money has no political ideology, it simply seeks a net positive return wherever it can find it. This simple fact has always been a large pain in the ass for folks that think their ideology is the single most important issue. Coincidently these people are from both the far right and the left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit

Capital only cares about the final numbers and the project as a whole.

20% percent of units can lose X amount as long as the other 80% covers that X loss and a sufficient return on the investment.

Money has no political ideology, it simply seeks a net positive return wherever it can find it. This simple fact has always been a large pain in the ass for folks that think their ideology is the single most important issue. Coincidently these people are from both the far right and the left.

---

I am thinking the majority of projects getting off of the ground are not 100% self funded,mostly because the newspapers show the incentives used in the funding chain.

Concidering Mr. Gilbert was incentivize $200 million to start out with,which bought a lot of property at that time,then on top of that every property then was eligible for even more tax credits on the repair side.

I am not debating if that was good,bad or indifferent just as an example of the scope of non self funding to a large part.


When an individual can buy a house and rehab it and sell it for a profit is usually a good factor of when it becomes feasible to self fund.

If an individual purchases a property and uses incentives to rehabilitate then resales for a profit that is playing with numbers at the taxpayers expense.

I like the boarding up aspect verses demolition because if the house has good bones then it is worth rehabilitation and more apt to be of value to the city long term.

I like that house available on the canal over there,I am thinking maybe if I put my currant houses in my kids names and have them buy it and lease it to me,because in theroy I would be over 55 and broke and have a slim chance of finding employment because I really did not graduate high school,my 24 collage credits from the military probably means nothing.

So HUD can cover my rent,I have the right to pay no water and I could probably get a few roommates to cover the taxes.

I could actually retire in some nice digs living two doors down from the mayor and be the poster child.

No worries,because the concept of actually helping me get a better education or any kind of skills training so I could actually buy and maintain on my own would not be in the cards,you know,just kinda wharehouse me.

So would that be considered far left or far right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

I am thinking the majority of projects getting off of the ground are not 100% self funded,mostly because the newspapers show the incentives used in the funding chain.

Concidering Mr. Gilbert was incentivize $200 million to start out with,which bought a lot of property at that time,then on top of that every property then was eligible for even more tax credits on the repair side.

I am not debating if that was good,bad or indifferent just as an example of the scope of non self funding to a large part.


When an individual can buy a house and rehab it and sell it for a profit is usually a good factor of when it becomes feasible to self fund.

If an individual purchases a property and uses incentives to rehabilitate then resales for a profit that is playing with numbers at the taxpayers expense.

I like the boarding up aspect verses demolition because if the house has good bones then it is worth rehabilitation and more apt to be of value to the city long term.

I like that house available on the canal over there,I am thinking maybe if I put my currant houses in my kids names and have them buy it and lease it to me,because in theroy I would be over 55 and broke and have a slim chance of finding employment because I really did not graduate high school,my 24 collage credits from the military probably means nothing.

So HUD can cover my rent,I have the right to pay no water and I could probably get a few roommates to cover the taxes.

I could actually retire in some nice digs living two doors down from the mayor and be the poster child.

No worries,because the concept of actually helping me get a better education or any kind of skills training so I could actually buy and maintain on my own would not be in the cards,you know,just kinda wharehouse me.

So would that be considered far left or far right?

---

Thats easy it is "gaming the system". It happens all the time in all kinds of ways, greed and selfishness exist everywhere right, left and middle.

Back on your "self funded" it's all well and good and there is not a thing wrong with it but just because some people accomplish that exact scenario doesn't mean that the process is a realistic answer.

Credit is how the American economy was built. We even now have a Republican President that built a empire on leveraged debt and declared himself the "King of Debt".

Credit and Debt are not going away any sooner than we grow gills.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article..._medium=social

Bedrock is moving forward with its development plans after the Michigan Legislature approved legislation earlier this month that would allow the company to capture up to half of the income tax generated by individuals working or living in the redeveloped site for up to 20 years.

So when it is finished that is one more building and everybody that works there that will not be going into the system.Or 50% anyways.

I could not find anywhere that gives the breakdown of how many of those 250 luxury apartments are going to be set aside for below medium income rates.

I'll believe it when I see it. ALL politicians "talk the talk" MOST don't "walk the walk". Besides, he's up for re-election.