"Right Sizing" -- Demolition, Relocation?

[Meddle]

http://freep.com/article/20090719/NE...d-city-s-woes?


Articles discusses the loss in population and tax base and ways to address the problems including bulldozing some areas and relocating the few residents to more central locations.

Urban planners insist -- and Detroit's political leaders are beginning to acknowledge -- that the city cannot continue to function as if nearly 2 million people still live there. That tax base is long gone, taking with it the money required to maintain city services and a crumbling infrastructure.

Experts say a downsized Detroit is doable, if these steps are taken:

• Create a new city master plan, a blueprint for future development and the regreening of the landscape.

• Identify which parts of the city are most suitable for habitation and development.

• Develop an execution plan that acknowledges any right-sizing will take 25 to 50 years and should be done in 5-year increments to accommodate budget constraints.

• Take a full inventory of all city-owned parcels and develop a plan to clear, clean and assemble them into usable shape.

• Establish state and federal alliances with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Reserve Board to pursue block grants that could be used to relocate residents.

• Build a partnership with private investors willing to support Detroit's future.

[Huggybear]

Maybe Detroit could declare Chapter 9 and thereby avoid any obligation to serve, say, the one remaining house on a prairie block [[and the joke would be creating a "good Detroit" to take on all the good neighborhoods and leaving all the bad neighborhoods in the "old Detroit").

Relocation and "shrinking" are great ideas in theory, but with no eminent domain, all the city could do is cut off services. And then the city would get sued for due process and equal protection violations [["Why do rich citizens get services where poor ones do not?"). And frankly, we don't have 25 to 50 years. It's more like 3-5.

Detroit needs to go to the feds and aggressively seek [[1) a city-wide tax break until Detroit meets some benchmark of prosperity and [[2) the ability to let in a couple of hundred thousand immigrants to soak up the empty housing stock and property.

[rjk]

On a recent visit to the Ivanhoe Cafe we noticed that many of the side streets in that area are being repaved. Brand new wheelchair accessible corner sidewalks and repaved streets that practically no one will use.

A good start would be to just spend money more wisely. I hardly makes much sense to repave streets where over 90% of the parcels are empty.

[mwilbert]

And frankly, we don't have 25 to 50 years. It's more like 3-5.

Rightsizing, even if pursued vigorously and to the greatest extent possible isn't going to solve anything in the next 3-5 years. It would be a long-term strategy. However, I don't know what it is we only have 3-5 years for. Is there some specific issue that people expect to have to face in the time period that is significantly different from the existing issues?

[EastSider]

Detroit needs to go to the feds and aggressively seek [[1) a city-wide tax break until Detroit meets some benchmark of prosperity and [[2) the ability to let in a couple of hundred thousand immigrants to soak up the empty housing stock and property.

Why would the city have to go to Washington to cut taxes? Besides, the spending needs to be cut before any taxes.

All this talk about "rightsizing" and moving people around is ridiculous [[or rediculous if you prefer). People are moving around just fine on their own; they don't need a bureaucracy established to help them do it.

The rightsizing needs to start in City Hall.

Pull a Robert "Bob" Bobb and make the employees pick up their checks in person for two pay periods.

Cut departments and don't shift those employees to other areas. Let them go.

Cut the pay and benefits of city council and the mayor, and don't fall for this bullshit about it being a "full-time" job. It's not a "job" for most of them, because that implies work, and they're allergic to it.

Huggybear's mention of possible equal protection lawsuits is a good point, so let the sheriff take over patrols in the "rural" areas.

[Olddetroiter]

The idea of clearing out almost empty neighborhoods sounds great unless you still happen to live in one. I suspect that most, if not all, of those left in these neighborhoods are still there because they cannot afford to move out. Would the city pay their expenses for moving and finding new homes or just kick them out?

[Meddle]

The only way they could do it would be to provide new housing. That's why the article mentions partnerships. They'd have to clear the land in some vacant areas, build new houses [[maybe with Habitat for Humanity), move some people in, then demolish the old places before squatters moved in.

The areas designated to be left 'green' would have to have all pavement and utilities removed and be landscaped as parks. Definitely a huge and ambitious undertaking.

To make it work though, there would have to be a dedicated effort to make life better in the new areas. Viable retailers and markets, increased police presence, transportation, medical care, etc. Towns within the city so to speak.

[3rdDegreeBurns]

I think it is a mistake to assume that the city would force anyone to move. Even if the city had eminent domain powers, Detroit shouldn't exercise them for this purpose. That would be a political disaster and a huge social justice quagmire.

However, the city could rezone abandoned neighborhoods so that no further development could occur and so that if a structure were to be damaged more than 50%, it must be demolished [[not repaired). The county land bank already owns the majority of land for tax delinquency in many ares. The city could afford to purchase most remaining property [[property in these areas wouldn't cost much)All of the above combined with reasonable relocation assistance would probably result in the vast majority of resident and businesses relocating voluntarily.

Gradually, the city could cut off services to depopulated areas and focus on the more populated areas of the city. In order to do that, you need to decide which neighboorhoods will be the winners and which will be the losers. This is where the biggest challenge lies, because there will be a lot of borderline decisions to be made. The city could probably afford to "decommission" as much as 60-70% of the developed land over the course of the next 50 years. Some could be redeveloped into parkland or agricultural. The rest would be allowed to revert to a natural state and reserved for possible future redevelopment if/when the city's develop-able areas can no longer meet the needs of the population.

The real reason why cities have been so reluctant to adopt shrinking plans is because it is politically unpopular to say "People have been leaving our city for 50 years and there is no reason to believe that is going to change anytime in the next couple decades." People want to think of Detroit as a top-10 population city. We aren't and won't be again in our lifetimes unless the whole world changes in ways we are unable to predict. We need to at least consider making our city smaller and more in-line with our current and projected population.

[royce]

Under my plan, the city would not have to use condemnation. They would depopulate low-density areas by helping those residents relocate to more densely populated areas. These residents could move into the many vacant bankrupt homes. New homes could also be built near the edge of denser areas.

For those holdouts, the city simply tells them that they have a year to move or they can stay but services will cease after the one-year time frame and streets will be barracated and the area fenced off. If the city doesn't collect anymore taxes from them, can the residents still sue?

The vacant land would not be turned into nature preserves because the city would still be responsible for its upkeep. No, the area would remain vacant until some redevelopment project would arise. There is an area designated for the I-94 Project that has been cleared between St. Syril Avenue and Mt. Elliot, Huber and Miller streets. No one seems to have made a big fuss about this clearing of homes, a school, and businesses. If it can be done here it can be done in other parts of the city.

[Meddle]

I always thought there were two prime areas. One around the Medical Center, and the other north of Eastern Market. Both are already mostly vacant and close to existing services.

Maybe down around Chene Park too.

[Huggybear]

Why would the city have to go to Washington to cut taxes?

Sorry - that wasn't clear. We need relief from federal taxes until the city is back on its feet. Think of it as payback for all of the government-sponsored redlining, freeway building, and subsidized suburbanization.

[Huggybear]

How much longer do you think the city can go on borrowing to deficit spend? Its credit rating is in constant decline, and that means that the cost of borrowing is always going up.

Rightsizing, even if pursued vigorously and to the greatest extent possible isn't going to solve anything in the next 3-5 years. It would be a long-term strategy. However, I don't know what it is we only have 3-5 years for. Is there some specific issue that people expect to have to face in the time period that is significantly different from the existing issues?

[SWMAP]

"Gradually, the city could cut off services to depopulated areas and focus on the more populated areas of the city."


When I was a girl growing up on the lower east Side, next tot he Detroit river, the City of detroit informed the residents of Grayhaven that the city would no longer provide the services of the Fire Department [[because the bridge to Grayhaven was too small and rickety. Without fire protection the residents could not get homeowner's insurance and they could not sell their houses. And thus the neighborhood emptied.

The City could do the same thing in some other neighborhoods on the east side: no fire protection. I doubt that many of the residents have insurance anyway, so the impetus to move wouldn't be strong - but they would realize that they can't sell their houses! They have to be thinking that maybe someone [[like a developer will buy their house someday - why else hang on to decrepit buildings with no stores and the smallest amount of police protection? Most of those people should be in protected senior citizen housing - they just need a real graphic reason to go.

[kraig]

"Gradually, the city could cut off services to depopulated areas and focus on the more populated areas of the city."


When I was a girl growing up on the lower east Side, next tot he Detroit river, the City of detroit informed the residents of Grayhaven that the city would no longer provide the services of the Fire Department [[because the bridge to Grayhaven was too small and rickety. Without fire protection the residents could not get homeowner's insurance and they could not sell their houses. And thus the neighborhood emptied.

The City could do the same thing in some other neighborhoods on the east side: no fire protection. I doubt that many of the residents have insurance anyway, so the impetus to move wouldn't be strong - but they would realize that they can't sell their houses! They have to be thinking that maybe someone [[like a developer will buy their house someday - why else hang on to decrepit buildings with no stores and the smallest amount of police protection? Most of those people should be in protected senior citizen housing - they just need a real graphic reason to go.

Who bought the homes? Did the residents end up leaving the homes and losing their investments?

[SWMAP]

Yes. Grayhaven was essentially abandoned. See the huge thread about Gar wood's abandoned home on Grayhaven. it became a ghost town.

[Baselinepunk]

I love this idea. It makes a lot of sense on so many levels; it almost sells itself.



Almost.




There are some really important things to consider with this thing. Not only on the topic of where to put people [[housing), but it has to be understood that resistance may be facilitated through upsetting established communities. While it would be very easy for me to drive down street "X" in Detroit and say the residents obviously would be better off someplace else, I don't see [[nor am I am of) the social dynamic that exists there. Inside the book lays the challenge.

I don't know if D-town has it in the PR department to sell this idea to the people. Can D-town show the people who would be "displaced" the people's buy in to the idea, show them how this is not just another "Jefferies" situation; and how this will really address some of their issues they feel are being neglected?

I don't know. It seems like a tremendous hill to clime. There is a lot of bullshit that has never been address around these parts; there's a lot of healing to do.

In Flint, they can blame GM ... around here, we all blame each other.

[3rdDegreeBurns]

It is true that shrinking the city of Detroit will be a massive challenge. It is also true that there is no precedent for doing this in a socially responsible way. However, I personally don't see this as a choice for the city. The city [[and the metro region) MUST face these issues NOW! We have been ignoring population decline for 50 years. Our biggest failure has been believing the dream that we will once again realize our glory years of the 1940s and 50s.

This is not a uniquely Detroit problem [[although Detroit is likely on the leading edge of the curve). Most Midwestern industrial cities will need to accept the reality that changing global economic conditions will continue to result in population loss and that they will not be as large and important as they once were for at least the next few decades.

We need to rise to the occasion. Focus on what makes Detroit unique and worth saving. Then we need to accept reality and start planning for a future where Detroit has 750,000-600,000 residents. Only then do we stand a chance of solving our financial and management problems.

[2blocksaway]

This is assuming thing turn around here economically but lets give it a try.

If Detroit ever does manage to clear out a significant parcel what happens?

For simplicity lets say the area between Jefferson and Kercheval and Conner and Alter. I don't think that would involve more than a few hundred people.

Would it be possible for the city to sell this parcel to a developer and form a new city? Would Grosse Pointe Park be interested?

Other areas a deeper in to the city and would be better suited to greenspace or industry but I think any area near a border could be sold [[assuming an economic improvement) and maybe a new inner ring burb could pop up.

I know all of you Detroit apologists will ask why not just redevelop this area as a piece of Detroit? The answer is you know why but just won't admit it. Schools, taxes, police, fire, etc..

[Novine]

"I know all of you Detroit apologists will ask why not just redevelop this area as a piece of Detroit? The answer is you know why but just won't admit it. Schools, taxes, police, fire, etc."

And a new city is going to fund those things with what money?

[kraig]

This finally comes up when the city is looking at Council By districts. Every Council Member is going to fight the shrinking of their individual districts.

What will be done about the businesses?

[kraig]

Yes. Grayhaven was essentially abandoned. See the huge thread about Gar wood's abandoned home on Grayhaven. it became a ghost town.

Thanks for the info. The city pretty much did the same thing with Graimark. And their doing the same thing to Delray and most of Northeast Detroit.

[blksoul_x]

If right sizing/demolition/relocation is apropos for the city, why can't the same be said about the suburban districts. To be sure, many of Detroit's suburbs, historically, share responsibility toward the detriment and decline of the city.

Why can't the leaders of this region, for the good of the city, add some of the area suburbs to Detroit, with the city proper being the controlling interest. For instance, for the sake of a stronger 'tax-base', 'regional support', etc; would it be to far-fetched to add the Woodward Corridor say, Ferndale, Royal Oak, up to Birmingham, and Southfield as Detroit. Maybe even head southeast and add the Pointes, Harper Woods, East Pointe, Hazel Park, then go south and add, Highland Park, and Hamtramck as well.


By expanding the city boundaries, theoretically, it seems that monies generated from the more economic booming districts, would help fund the revitalization of the areas more depopulated areas.

Although far-fetched, It seems to me, to be fair to all, the suburban areas, share some responsibility in creating a more diverse, and economically competitive area. If the city of Detroit has to bear such as burden, as resizing, demolition, and relocation, then the suburban areas ought to help with such a burden.

I think the entire area should support a collective effort, insofar as, reshaping the city of Detroit.

Black leadership in this city, has never had the economic advantage that white leaders have enjoyed elsewhere in the metro.

blksoul_atcha!
The BJL, the color you love to hate!

[Meddle]

If anything, it should be the other way around. You can't really include the 'burbs to the north due to county lines.

Redford could acquire everything to Telegraph or Burt Rd.

Dearborn could expand east and north.

Melvindale could take that whole south section including Marathon Oil.

Eastpointe could expand west quite a bit.

[2blocksaway]

"

And a new city is going to fund those things with what money?

A reasonable property tax rate.

[irish_mafia]

Alter to Van Dyke and Jefferson to Harper are now called East Park. The 7 residents that live there have been relocated to downtown next to a school and a grocery store.

What was so difficult about that?