State to Unveil Detroit Demolition Plans

**jpbollma** · August-01-12, 05:26 PM

According to the article the city is claiming it costs $8,000.00 do demolish a house. Snyder is saying it can be done for half of that if certain regulations are relaxed. I'd like to know what these regulations are and if it will impact public health in a negative way. If not, then hopefully it's true. I would think that would be quite an embarrassment for the City though, and you would then know there are kickbacks going on even in the demolition of the City.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...677917310.html

**Locke09** · August-01-12, 05:39 PM

Where have you seen Snyder or anyone, with any knowledge about demolitions, claim that houses can be demolished for $4000? If its further in that article, I can't see it because you have to subscribe. But I would love to see such a quote. I don't think permits are a big part of the cost so the only regulations I could see them relaxing that would impact cost in any significant way is if they don't care how they remediate asbestos or lead paint and they don't care what soil they use to backfill or whether it is properly graded after backfilling. Perhaps they'll also just dump the debris into the hole that is left to reduce the cost of dirt to backfill and reduce the cost of hauling away the debris???

I might believe there could be some savings, but half the price?

BTW, the $8000 quoted by the city is average if you check the industry.

**Wesley Mouch** · August-01-12, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by jpbollma

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...677917310.html

According to the article the city is claiming it costs $8,000.00 do demolish a house. Snyder is saying it can be done for half of that if certain regulations are relaxed. I'd like to know what these regulations are and if it will impact public health in a negative way. If not, then hopefully it's true. I would think that would be quite an embarrassment for the City though, and you would then know there are kickbacks going on even in the demolition of the City.

Not necessarily. Contractors overcharging doesn't always mean kickbacks. It could simply mean stupidity.

I'd bet on stupidity.

But in trash and demolition -- kickbacks can never be ruled out.

On public health... I think you should think about the public health impact of abandoned houses -- where scrappers strip pipes of asbestos insulation and throw it to the wind -- and where young children play and nibble on lead paint.

I couldn't read article -- but the regulations might not be environmental.

**jpbollma** · August-01-12, 05:46 PM

Sorry guys! I don;t subscribe either. I can view the entire article by going through Google News. Here is the portion that stuck out to me:

The state's broader role in running Detroit is the result of a power-sharing agreement struck in April—and endorsed by Detroit Mayor Dave Bing—to help the city stave off bankruptcy.
But the state's plans have received a cool reception among Detroit's top leaders in recent weeks. And the new state funding will fall far short of the money needed to meet Mr. Bing's target of tearing down 10,000 houses in Detroit by 2013.
Last week, Mr. Bing told an NAACP gathering here that he was unhappy with the state's approach in several new initiatives, saying that officials in Lansing excluded local experts and discounted the work the city had already done to raze 4,800 structures since 2009.
"The folks who were already doing the demolition in the city were not at the table for a number of months" with the governor's planning team, Karla Henderson, the mayor's planning chief, said in an interview this week. She noted that even under the consent agreement, "the state right now does not have the authority to tear down structures that they do not own."
Detroit officials say the city has lagged in its demolition efforts because it has been fighting for greater access to federal funds. City building officials estimate that each demolition job costs about $8,000, including asbestos removal and utility shutoffs.
Advisers to the governor say the work can be done for half that. State officials advised by industry experts—including Bill Pulte, a private-equity investor whose grandfather founded homebuilder Pulte Homes—say that relaxing city and state regulations, and working more closely with utilities, would cut costs and speed the process.

**jpbollma** · August-01-12, 05:48 PM

The article goes on to state that the type of a plan was enacted in Grand Rapids several years ago and was successful in stabilizing some of the neighborhoods there.

**Mark Smiles** · August-01-12, 06:03 PM

When Kwame was Mayor, didn't the city have to return funds to the Federal government, because they did not spend the money for demolition work as it was intended for?

IIRC the reason the city did not use the funds was because they did not want to hire white contractors [[They wanted "minority contractors").

So when the city claims it costs eight grand I don't trust them, they are not as interested in clearing out dangerous structures,as they are in spending the money in the "right places".

If the city was interested in clearing out dangerous buildings, they never would have stalled the process during Kwame's time in office.

The talk about "protecting" Belle Isle, really shows nothing has changed.

**Locke09** · August-01-12, 06:05 PM

Thanks for the additional info.

Advisors say it can be done for half. Well, they should be specific as to what corners would be cut. But this isn't a case of kickbacks or stupidity. $8000 is a reasonable cost to do it right. The advisors need to say what the ramifications are of relaxing regulations. And they will be environmental and safety regulations. Those are the things that cost money.

**Richard** · August-01-12, 06:18 PM

It was all fine and dandy until you have a major home builder wanting to relax regulations.

The regulation relaxing would happen so fast nobody would be able to see what is being relaxed until in the future when it was to late.

There was another news piece where the neighborhood was questioning why their neighborhood was being targeted as it was already pretty much stable.

It has been two years to have a plan now all of the sudden it is rush rush at the last minute so we can do things without recourse.

No you cannot or should not shove it all in the basement and bury it as it has happened in the past,toxic chemicals leach into the ground water then into the rivers and if there is future development then there are the clean up costs,or 10 years later when all is forgotten somebody plants a garden on top of a lead base.

Call me silly but I think they should spend the funds in the worst neighborhoods to give them a push up,there are funds available every year more then what has been applied for anyways.

They could put it up for bids and use several contractors ,say 1000 home package what is your bid? The city does not pay until it signs off and the contractor puts up a bond equal to the bid in case of any corner cutting.

**jpbollma** · August-01-12, 06:32 PM

I agree with you. Health regulations should not be touched if it will cause suffering of the people in the neighborhoods. I would be interested in seeing how they get to a price so drastically different. Hopefully it can be done. It seems everything takes so much longer in Detroit than any other major US city.

**Wesley Mouch** · August-01-12, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by Locke09

Thanks for the additional info.

Advisors say it can be done for half. Well, they should be specific as to what corners would be cut. But this isn't a case of kickbacks or stupidity. $8000 is a reasonable cost to do it right. The advisors need to say what the ramifications are of relaxing regulations. And they will be environmental and safety regulations. Those are the things that cost money.

$8,000 is not an unreasonable amount for a single house demolition. But we're not talking about single demolitions.

**Richard** · August-01-12, 06:47 PM

The $8000 per has to be an average based on multiple houses ,you have one that may be burnt and only costs $2000 but then you go to a multi family that costs $12,000 so I guess they would need to clarify to the general public.

Based on this group of thousand properties the average would be $8000 per.

On the other hand if you have a dozer operator on the job it is cheaper to demolish in bulk then one single house,bigger transports use less trips,one fixed equipment move costs to the site etc.

**DetroitPlanner** · August-01-12, 08:23 PM

I would think that relaxing could mean not taking out the footings [[basement). By leaving in the footings, the land becomes harder to redevelop or turn into landscaping or a farm.

**Wesley Mouch** · August-01-12, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

I would think that relaxing could mean not taking out the footings [[basement). By leaving in the footings, the land becomes harder to redevelop or turn into landscaping or a farm.

In a crisis, as we are, doesn't this seem like a reasonable trade-off?

If you could do all the abandoned houses in Detroit -- but leave foundations for the property owners to deal with... [[as they should)

...or you could do 1/2 the houses propertly leaving 50% of the abandoned, vacant, dangerous, festering homes standing...

which would you pick?

[[My opinion -- as the saying goes -- perfection is the enemy of the good.)

**DetroitPlanner** · August-02-12, 07:49 AM

Wesley, all I am saying is doing things half-assed discourages redevelopment of the area. Why would you want to discourage redevelopment in an area that is already watered, sewered, electrified, with streets and other infrastructure?

**1953** · August-02-12, 09:11 AM

Let's give away these houses to people who commit to fix them up and live in them or rent them out. There's no greater public health problem, in my opinion, than a city without structures!

**Scottathew** · August-02-12, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by 1953

Let's give away these houses to people who commit to fix them up and live in them or rent them out. There's no greater public health problem, in my opinion, than a city without structures!

That won't work.

Those with the funds to do so would already be purchasing these homes for the 5k to 10k they're going for. The big cost is fixing them up, not acquiring them.

Sometimes on my way home I have to bail off the freeway and I drive through neighborhoods. There are some people who have dug in, and are keeping their stuff up despite all the abandoned structures about them. Let's help those people out and tear those houses down before they generate crime or fires.

Loosening regulations is probably a good thing in this situation because of the very real danger that forgotten homes present.

**Wesley Mouch** · August-02-12, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Wesley, all I am saying is doing things half-assed discourages redevelopment of the area. Why would you want to discourage redevelopment in an area that is already watered, sewered, electrified, with streets and other infrastructure?

I do understand that concern. The blighted structures left behind do that well enough already. I hope the 'relaxed' regulations aren't so much half-asses as they are efficient. Maybe we really can get more blight removed with the same money -- and without an increased health risk.

**Islandman** · August-02-12, 10:29 AM

It would be cool if they could figure out a way to infill the basement with some sort of nontoxic foam [[think the foam safety system in the car in Demolition man). That way, the rest of the house could be demolished, dirt placed over the foam, and redevelopent of the land could be more efficient in the future.

**Richard** · August-02-12, 10:30 AM

So if they demo then place a lien on the property say for instance the full $8 k then you have a dead piece of property because they could not sell it for $200 now they need $8200,I guess it becomes complicated because if you have a speculator that owns numerous properties if you are giving them a complimentary demo you are encouraging the practice.

They have to do a in depth search before they can demo anyways so if they go after the speculators and lien their other properties or charge them for the demo they can then use those funds to keep on going on to the next one .

It is not really fair to the taxpayer for somebody to go to auction and buy a property for $500 then expect the city to come in and do the clean up for them, it is going to keep the cycle going with no plans other then just demoing everything and it snowballs and probably some cases hurts a neighborhood even more by creating lots that most likely will remain empty and overgrown and continue to be a problem it will never end and always cost more monies.

Like 1953 posted there are a lot of old home people that have no problem living in a fixer upper ,maybe take out the worst of the worst on a large scale which would be cheaper per house and come up with a plan for the rest.

To bad Sears no longer sells kit homes you could offer a lot and a house assembly required.

Shollin · August-02-12, 10:51 AM

My aunt lives by Warren and Chalmers. Her block only has 3 structures standing including her house. She's old and she enjoys the empty space. It's like retiring up north but being in the city. The next block they built some new homes about 10-12 years ago. They are now mostly vacant and boarded up. She says she wouldn't mind if they tore up the street and made it gravel.

**jpbollma** · August-02-12, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Shollin

My aunt lives by Warren and Chalmers. Her block only has 3 structures standing including her house. She's old and she enjoys the empty space. It's like retiring up north but being in the city. The next block they built some new homes about 10-12 years ago. They are now mostly vacant and boarded up. She says she wouldn't mind if they tore up the street and made it gravel.

Not sure why Detroit always thinks its a good idea to build new single family homes in areas of town that no one at all wants to live in. Then you just end up with more blight. If they are going to build or refurbish homes they should focus on places where people actually want to live like Rosedale, The Villiages, Woodbidge, Boston-Edison ect. redevelop or build more in Corktown and Midtown, or at the old Tiger Stadium location. Detroit needs more multi-family units not more single family homes in undesirable locations..

**jolla** · August-02-12, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by 1953

Let's give away these houses to people who commit to fix them up and live in them or rent them out. There's no greater public health problem, in my opinion, than a city without structures!

1. Nobody wants to fix these buildings up. The city is practically giving them away already and there are no takers.

2. A greater public health problem than a city without structures, in my opinion, is a city with empty/broken-down/burned-out/etc. structures.

**jpbollma** · August-02-12, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by jolla

1. Nobody wants to fix these buildings up. The city is practically giving them away already and there are no takers.

2. A greater public health problem than a city without structures, in my opinion, is a city with empty/broken-down/burned-out/etc. structures.

Overall I agree with this. Get rid of the blight, focus city services to help people in these areas that actually keep up their homes, go after slum lords to fix up their properties, and develop in areas that are actually desirable. Sell these acres of empty land off for farming, let residents farm it, or throw down some flower seeds. Maybe someday in the future, someone will want to buy this land, but as of now 140 sq miles for 700,000 people [[with likely an even smaller population at the next census) makes absolutely no sense and is bankrupting the city. Also, lease the large parks to the state or metro area as state or metro parks with a fee. The fee will be used to refurbish them and serve as a way to keep people out who only want to squat there, liter, or cause other problems.

**Richard** · August-02-12, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by jolla

1. Nobody wants to fix these buildings up. The city is practically giving them away already and there are no takers.

2. A greater public health problem than a city without structures, in my opinion, is a city with empty/broken-down/burned-out/etc. structures.

If they offer no taxes for ten years provided they maintain as a primary residence then that might help and add to the overall good.

**Wesley Mouch** · August-02-12, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by jpbollma

Not sure why Detroit always thinks its a good idea to build new single family homes in areas of town that no one at all wants to live in. Then you just end up with more blight. If they are going to build or refurbish homes they should focus on places where people actually want to live like Rosedale, The Villiages, Woodbidge, Boston-Edison ect. redevelop or build more in Corktown and Midtown, or at the old Tiger Stadium location. Detroit needs more multi-family units not more single family homes in undesirable locations..

We need to let go of the idea that detached, single-family dwellings are the 'American Dream'. Even in good times, there's much to be said about dense, attached dwellings. And in tough times -- there's a lot to be said.