Just Let the houses Burn Down

**Richard** · August-25-11, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

I don't think you have to worry about asbestos burning, since the reason it was used was the fact it doesn't burn.

You are correct ,the danger comes from the heat plume blowing the fibers into the air,you will not see them but they will kill you.

**Zacha341** · August-25-11, 08:57 PM

Hah! I was a listener of the Doors and MB without using drugs... perhaps that's worse! LOL!

Originally Posted by Richard

LOL Thanks for the correction, proof positive of the long term effects of lead on ones brain,either that or from listening to the Moody Blues and Doors in the preferred state of mind back in the days

"Breathe deep the gathering gloom...."
-- Moody Blues

**ct4438** · August-25-11, 09:21 PM

Agreed that there would be difficulty determining if a structure meets all the criteria, especially whether one is completely abandoned. However, after the 2008 death of firefighter Walter Harris while responding to a fire in an abandoned home [[later determined to be arson), I think DFD may be making life-saving decisions in some cases. On a personally selfish note, I have a relative that is a Detroit Firefighter and I would not want him to needlessly be put in danger.

Just my 2 cents.

**internet_pseudopod** · August-25-11, 10:32 PM

The criteria for putting out a fire? So what, when the house is burning someone is going to pull out a list, a protractor, and a graphing calculator to figure out whether or not to put out the fire? Get outta here!

Quick Checklist:
1. A Detroit Works Plan that probably doesn't include your neighborhood. Check.
2. Detroit Police crime fighting plan that emphasizes apathetic response to burglar alarms. Check.
3. Detroit Fire fighting plan that emphasizes no response to abandoned house fires that may spread to your perfectly good house. Check.

The conspiratorial Detroiter in me says they are clearing the population by any means necessary.

**Crumbled_pavement** · August-25-11, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by internet_pseudopod

The conspiratorial Detroiter in me says they are clearing the population by any means necessary.

This is what I was thinking. Sounds like something that would be quite successful. They've already ran off 25% of the population since 2000. What's another 25 - 30%? These plans should easily accelerate the population loss.

**ct4438** · August-26-11, 12:20 AM

I don't have any idea how DFD would determine if a structure is occupied or not, but I would hate to see lives risked or lost over an abandoned structure. But risking the lives of our over-tasked DFD for nothing more than property value is not a good trade-off. It's a dangerous job and the work they do is admirable, but if keeping a blaze from spreading is the best they can do and no lives are lost, I have no problem with it.

That said....I still don't know how that's determined. But at least consider the safety of those doing the job before insisting that fire crews risk their necks for an empty building.

**Zacha341** · August-26-11, 05:05 AM

Will the city remove the heap of ash, charred bricks and remaining sooted wood etc. any faster than they are removing other heaps of refuse...?

**Paintnprint** · August-26-11, 05:12 AM

Cops and Firefighters can decide when they have to do their jobs or don't?

DetroitPole · August-26-11, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by Paintnprint

Cops and Firefighters can decide when they have to do their jobs or don't?

Can I decide not to pay my taxes now that they've let us know its official that the city isn't going to do anything anymore?

**1953** · August-26-11, 08:19 AM

The city needs to build a better core of mid-level managers and department leaders, who are able to spread an ethos of prevention, best-practice use, and continuous quality improvement, rather than an ethos of, "I don't know how to handle the current situation so I will just do nothing or make bad decisions."

**corktownyuppie** · August-26-11, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by internet_pseudopod

The conspiratorial Detroiter in me says they are clearing the population by any means necessary.

I'm just trying to get where you're coming from. The City is broke and getting broker. They don't have manpower or financial resources to keep city services. All decisions must be made in the name of cost/benefit analysis.

So going with the conspiracy -- and remembering that the biggest problem the city faces is their shrinking bank account -- who is "they" and what would they have to gain by "clearing the population"?

**SWMAP** · August-26-11, 08:43 AM

Last year i was in a meeting in Lansing at the apital. The speaker, not a legislator, but a consultant, said that Michigan services would plod along in 2010 because there was Federal stimulus funds to prop up the State and local budgets. But 2011 - this year - would be "armageddon in Michigan" as services are withdrawn due to no funds.

Friends - accept it. There is no money to respond to overwhelmingly false robo-call alarms, to fight fires in abandoned, isolated structures, to repair the scout cars, etc. People on this Board are discussing how they can get their friends and family downtown to protest against their tax assessments, thus depleting the city coffers further. And this is everywhere in Michigan. Many out-state communities are losing their State Trooper presence and posts. The courts are going to lose courtrooms and judges.

Its not a conspiracy. its the economy finally at the tipping point.

DetroitPole · August-26-11, 08:48 AM

How about we get rid of the infinity Shenetta Colemans - you know, the aunties, cousins, friends from church - in city government blowing tax money on things like $200,000 worth of furniture to redecorate offices and the like, or just not doing any work, and use the money we save to provide services to the residents instead?

**tarkus** · August-26-11, 09:02 AM

Just remember all you naysayers Detroit Firefighter Walt Harris DIED putting out an abandoned house fire. I say BURN BABY BURN to houses that meet that criteria. So I ask all of you who say put the fire out, was it worth it?

**SWMAP** · August-26-11, 09:09 AM

Well, to put a fine point on it, the money that Coleman took was federal and dedicated. It couldn't/wouldn't have been used for police or fire activities, street cleaning, etc.

But, aren't the infinity of friends and family actually being decimated by investigations and arrests? i agree that its not fast enough and oddly very late. What was Bing thinking to keep so many of KK's people around?
Still, the people of Detroit would be happy to elect the Big Cheese of all this corruption [[KK) if he ran again - or so he says and many of the citizens say.

ferntruth · August-26-11, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by tarkus

Just remember all you naysayers Detroit Firefighter Walt Harris DIED putting out an abandoned house fire. I say BURN BABY BURN to houses that meet that criteria. So I ask all of you who say put the fire out, was it worth it?

Wasn't fighting fires his job? Having the Fire Department come out and watch the building burn is the complete and total antithesis of what Firefighters are supposed to do. Every job has inherant dangers [[some such as firefighter or police officer, have more dangers than say an office worker) - ultimately it is up to the individual to decide if the career is worth the danger.

Your question as to whether or not it was "worth it" is unfair as the only person who can honestly answer it was Mr. Harris.

**corktownyuppie** · August-26-11, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitPole

How about we get rid of the infinity Shenetta Colemans - you know, the aunties, cousins, friends from church - in city government blowing tax money on things like $200,000 worth of furniture to redecorate offices and the like, or just not doing any work, and use the money we save to provide services to the residents instead?

#1 - I agree with the need to cut the BS corruption in city government. It's ridiculous and only adds to the mounting perception that the culture in Detroit is poisonous.

#2 - Rooting out waste in the city is not going to solve our problems. Even if you eliminated $10 Million Dollars in waste of the city, that would result in a net savings of $13 per Detroit Resident.

Thirteen Dollars.

=====

You have 750,000 residents. 130-ish square miles to cover and service and PAY FOR.

This can't be sustained. It's like asking a plumber to fix 400 leaks in an aircraft carrier. Oh by the way, the plumber has a broken arm. And also we just gave him a pay cut. There is no happy ending to this.

750,000 people could live in a space that's 25% the size of Detroit, easily. Hell, Manhattan has 8 Million people in 300 square miles. That means you have 75% fewer building to police...75% fewer houses to protect from fire, 75% fewer lights to keep on, 75% fewer streets to clean.

If Detroit is ever going to come back from this, it needs to shrink. What's the fair way to do that is a question which requires very, very serious discussion and skepticism. But let's all be very clear on the problem...the city's bills are structurally too big and the collected taxes small and getting smaller.

If there is a conspiracy, it's not to clear out the neighborhoods by any means necessary...it's to densify the population by any means necessary.

Here's a modest proposal...what if every neighborhood was evaluated by comparing two things:

- The cost to service and maintain this street
- The amount of collected taxes and economic production/commerce from this street.

Not saying that we use that as a sole factor in planning, but seriously...can you really justify keeping a neighborhood around when it costs $100,000 to service it every year and they collect $4,000 in taxes from it?

Shenetta and her $200,000 is wrong and shameful. But it's pennies when compared to neighborhood after neighborhood after neighborhood which wastes thousands of dollars that the city doesn't have to throw away.

**SWMAP** · August-26-11, 09:22 AM

the only person who can honestly answer it was Mr. Harris.

No, that's not true. his bosses have to ask it so they prevent another such useless fatality if possible. The insurance evaluators have to ask it.

This is a pertinent question for all tax-payers.

ferntruth · August-26-11, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by SWMAP

the only person who can honestly answer it was Mr. Harris.

No, that's not true. his bosses have to ask it so they prevent another such useless fatality if possible. The insurance evaluators have to ask it.

This is a pertinent question for all tax-payers.

We will have to disagree on this then. IMO, no one can answer whether it was worth his life, except for him. Insurance evaluators rate for the risk - they do not decide who should live or die in fires.
Bosses have to determine risk so they can prepare for the next fire, NOT so they can decide whether or not to fight fires.

Tax payers should question whether or not their money is being used wisely in the delivery of city services, not whether a specific firefighter is expendable.

**SWMAP** · August-26-11, 10:00 AM

I don't think Tarkus was being so philosophical. And he was trying to get a real-time answer, since we cannot now question Firefighter Harris directly about his personal take on this issue from heaven.

Tarkus was saying that the risk to firefighters when they fight fires in abandoned, isolated structure probably outweighs the community good achieved and witness - a firefighter was recently killed in our city in just such an effort. This is a worthwhile discussion.

**Zacha341** · August-26-11, 10:38 AM

You make good points. I'm thankful that I live in the middle of the city which is where things are going towards to a certain extent depending on the density of the spread out areas.

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

I'm just trying to get where you're coming from. The City is broke and getting broker. They don't have manpower or financial resources to keep city services. All decisions must be made in the name of cost/benefit analysis.

So going with the conspiracy -- and remembering that the biggest problem the city faces is their shrinking bank account -- who is "they" and what would they have to gain by "clearing the population"?

**internet_pseudopod** · August-26-11, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

I'm just trying to get where you're coming from. The City is broke and getting broker. They don't have manpower or financial resources to keep city services. All decisions must be made in the name of cost/benefit analysis.

So going with the conspiracy -- and remembering that the biggest problem the city faces is their shrinking bank account -- who is "they" and what would they have to gain by "clearing the population"?

I guess we shouldn't use the word conspiracy. We should use the word plan. Both you and Mayor Bing agree that the city needs to shrink. For the city to shrink you need to clear the population. Mayor Bing said there will be winners and losers. Mayor Bing said services will be reduced. This isn't conspiracy this represents an official policy.

Where the conspiracy comes in is in what we haven't been told. Specifically, what happens to the land after it is cleared. I truly doubt it will be left as fallow fields filled with "The Hills Have Eyes" type stragglers. We will just have to wait to find out who they land will be sold to and for how much.

The city will continue to get broker because it fails to gain competence at any thing. Shrinking will not help that. In fact it is a subset of the same problem. It essentially says I am going to fix my problems by jettisoning my failures. But without correcting the core failures you will continue to fail. Detroit has a legacy of poor services, poor management, and corruption. We have a prominent judge and attorney that refuse to fix a dangerous building, one of Detroit's most prominent suburbanite slumlords may be running[[ or at least condoning) a weed growing operation, a former mayor and police chief that are convicted felons, and last but not least you can strip a house in broad daylight without interference. This is a city where you can absolutely get away with anything. If you correct that you might get someone to come here. If you don't and continue to shrink the only difference is that you will be a tiny crap hole instead of a large one.

**corktownyuppie** · August-26-11, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by internet_pseudopod

I guess we shouldn't use the word conspiracy. We should use the word plan. Both you and Mayor Bing agree that the city needs to shrink. For the city to shrink you need to clear the population.

Well I agree with everything you say except for the part above. We must have a different understanding of Bing's plan. We don't need to clear the population. Losing population is not part of anyone's plan and doesn't help anyone.

We need to keep the population the same [[or growing) but move them into a smaller geographical area.

You say that if we do so, we'll have a tiny crap hole instead of a bigger one. I don't know...you might be right. But I do know this much. A tiny crap hole costs pennies to maintain and service vs. the gigantic, inefficient, aging, difficult to maintain elephant-of-a-city we call Detroit.

And then you'll have tons of extra money to start actually solving problems instead of draining away.

**internet_pseudopod** · August-26-11, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

#1 - I agree with the need to cut the BS corruption in city government. It's ridiculous and only adds to the mounting perception that the culture in Detroit is poisonous.

#2 - Rooting out waste in the city is not going to solve our problems. Even if you eliminated $10 Million Dollars in waste of the city, that would result in a net savings of $13 per Detroit Resident.

Thirteen Dollars......

It seems small in the amounts of money you deal with in government but $10 million dollars equals 142 cops at $70k apiece.

**corktownyuppie** · August-26-11, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by internet_pseudopod

It seems small in the amounts of money you deal with in government but $10 million dollars equals 142 cops at $70k apiece.

Yes. For 12 months. Then what?

The point I'm trying to make is that the DFD is making a decision to remove its structural costs. These aren't decisions that will save money this year. These are decisions which go to the city's bottom line every year. That's the thing with the neighborhoods, too. Shutting down garbage service to a neighborhood with 2 houses saves thousands of dollars. Not this year, every year.

We need to shrink the city [[area, not population) because that excess area costs money each and every year. Getting rid of $10MM in corruption gives you 142 cops for 12 months. Eliminating $10MM of annual, structural costs gives you 142 cops every year forever.