Ideas to help Detroit Recover

[oladub]

Given that present zoning rules result in the abandonment of properties, allow a five year delay on new owners getting homes up to code. This would result in higher sales prices and fewer abandonments.

Inspired by Zeffernelli's Romeo and Juliet in which the streets are no mans land but there is civilization within walled block sized family compounds, perhaps Detroit could carve out areas of prosperity within a no mans land.

Given that there is no cash, allow more control by developers. Allow walled gated sub-cities of maybe 4,000-50,000 residents. These communities would provide their own security and private schools. They would pay city taxes. Its a win-win. There would be construction and long term jobs. Detroit police and other services would have less territory to take care of and more tax money to work with. This idea sure beats planting forests or watching decay. If and when crime comes down in Detroit, the gates could come down. If gated communities don't sound appealing, consider that every apartment complex is a gated community.

If Detroit can't afford its pensions, pay what it owes in land to individuals or to unions. The unions, in turn, could sell or develop their land.

[DetroitPlanner]

Why would a family with jobs and child responsibilities WANT to move to Detroit?

My parents raised me in Detroit to be close to the Party Stores, good hospitals, museums.. Oh and being City Employees kinda clinched it.

[ghettopalmetto]

Given that present zoning rules result in the abandonment of properties, allow a five year delay on new owners getting homes up to code. This would result in higher sales prices and fewer abandonments.

So the building inspectors should just turn a blind eye to dangerous conditions? Yes, it's obvious that unsafe homes that do not meet building codes will sell for a premium.

Inspired by Zeffernelli's Romeo and Juliet in which the streets are no mans land but there is civilization within walled block sized family compounds,

Given that there is no cash, allow more control by developers. Allow walled gated sub-cities of maybe 4,000-50,000 residents. These communities would provide their own security and private schools. They would pay city taxes.

I believe that's called "Florida". I'm banging my head on my desk as to why anyone sane would spend good money to move to West Berlin. Kinda defeats the purpose of being in a city, don't you think?

[Dan Wesson]

Detroit is going to have to get smaller physically. Services have diminished but the area to cover has not.

[compn]

Detroit is going to have to get smaller physically.

you think detroit will look like windsor in the future?

[JBMcB]

So the building inspectors should just turn a blind eye to dangerous conditions? Yes, it's obvious that unsafe homes that do not meet building codes will sell for a premium.

Keep in mind most homes were built to an older building code. The delay would not allow dangerous conditions, just a delay in updating homes to the newer building codes. For example, all basement electrical outlets now need to be GFIs. Not having GFIs in the basement isn't unsafe, it's just safer if they are.

[ghettopalmetto]

Keep in mind most homes were built to an older building code. The delay would not allow dangerous conditions, just a delay in updating homes to the newer building codes. For example, all basement electrical outlets now need to be GFIs. Not having GFIs in the basement isn't unsafe, it's just safer if they are.

Yeah...except homes aren't required to be brought up to current Codes after purchase. The exception is if, and only if, renovations [[requiring a permit and inspection) are conducted. Well, and if there's an immediate danger that requires repair [[see above, then). So really, you're just making shit up. Just like Oladub is making shit up when he said that "Zoning regulations cause abandonment". Zoning has *NOTHING* to do with building codes.

[oladub]

ghettopalmetto: So the building inspectors should just turn a blind eye to dangerous conditions? Yes, it's obvious that unsafe homes that do not meet building codes will sell for a premium.

I ran into a retired couple in Wisconsin who had abandoned their house in Detroit because the cost of bringing it up to code was more than they could sell it for. Abandoned house can be fire hazards and in other ways dangerous too. Had they been able to sell their house even for five or ten thousand dollars it would have remained occupied and presumably not been an expense for the City to tear down. Also, if you noticed, I suggested that the new owners be required to bring it up to code within five years. Sweat equity might make that an affordable proposition to competent purchasers. Maybe you would rather have homeless people and burned down houses than temporarily imperfect houses?

I believe that's called "Florida". I'm banging my head on my desk as to why anyone sane would spend good money to move to West Berlin. Kinda defeats the purpose of being in a city, don't you think?

No I don't think it defeats the purpose of living in the city. it makes living in the city a possibility for middle class families. The idea is to reclaim the City dozens of blocks at a time. Middle class families do not want to move their families into a high crime area with lousy schools. Thats's how it stands. Maybe that's what you would like them to do but they aren't that stupid or irresponsible. Notice that I began with "given that there is no cash". I suggested a way to navigate around the problem of no cash. Where are your suggestions about how to do the same? Don't forget that my suggestion was job and tax rich but maybe you can do better. Go for it.

[ghettopalmetto]

No I don't think it defeats the purpose of living in the city. it makes living in the city a possibility for middle class families. The idea is to reclaim the City dozens of blocks at a time. Middle class families do not want to move their families into a high crime area with lousy schools. Thats's how it stands.

If the idea if living in a walled and gated compound is so terrific and desirable, then you first.

Why the focus on families? Families with school-age children constitute 25% of households in the United States. You're proposing to throw the other 75% of the potential market out with the bathwater...and forcing them to live in drab militarized communist bunkers, lest they have any run-ins with panhandlers on the street.

[oladub]

If the idea if living in a walled and gated compound is so terrific and desirable, then you first.

Why the focus on families? Families with school-age children constitute 25% of households in the United States. You're proposing to throw the other 75% of the potential market out with the bathwater...and forcing them to live in drab militarized communist bunkers, lest they have any run-ins with panhandlers on the street.

Ever been to a brain storming session where there is one guy sitting in the corner shooting sown ideas without contributing any?

I have lived in apartment complexes and visited a number of condos. if you need a key or fob to get in to use their pools, laundry rooms or just to access units, it is a gated community. I was, of course, referring to something larger that would offer the same security as well as other services.

Living in a gated community with security and good schools might not be important to you but to each his own.

Why families? Because they are the building blocks of civilizations and Detroit has a deficiency of middle class families. But you bring out a good point. There is no reason that developers couldn't create retirement or other sorts of communities either. I made no mention of drab militarized bunkers. In fact, I mentioned that taxes and jobs created by such developments would benefit the balance of Detroit. We've been waiting for some Democratic Party fairy godmother to start throwing money around Detroit. So far, that hasn't happened. Again, I ask, what ideas do you have to help Detroit recover?

[mwilbert]

If the idea if living in a walled and gated compound is so terrific and desirable, then you first.

Why the focus on families? Families with school-age children constitute 25% of households in the United States. You're proposing to throw the other 75% of the potential market out with the bathwater...and forcing them to live in drab militarized communist bunkers, lest they have any run-ins with panhandlers on the street.

I think this is correct. Also, gated communities don't solve the problem of schools in any case. The last people who are going to move into Detroit in quantity are middle-class families with children [[poor families don't have much choice, rich families have educational options wherever they are.)

[coracle]

I think this is correct. Also, gated communities don't solve the problem of schools in any case. The last people who are going to move into Detroit in quantity are middle-class families with children [[poor families don't have much choice, rich families have educational options wherever they are.)

Why do poor families have children they can't support and who do they expect will support them?

[oladub]

I think this is correct. Also, gated communities don't solve the problem of schools in any case. The last people who are going to move into Detroit in quantity are middle-class families with children [[poor families don't have much choice, rich families have educational options wherever they are.)

Then we have two votes for the middle class to stay away from Detroit and allow the city to swirl down the drain rather then benefit from more jobs and tax revenue... unless you have a better idea. Lots of people putting up good ideas here. Have a try.

[ghettopalmetto]

Ever been to a brain storming session where there is one guy sitting in the corner shooting sown ideas without contributing any?

I have. This is a different paradigm. Why, you ask? Because Detroit is SO behind the 8-ball, that virtually every other city in the United States is a living catalogue of Best [[and Worst) Practices...all of which you're ignoring in favor of Soviet bunkers for new residents.

In brief:

1. Going for the family market is a bad idea at this time. The quality of the schools, and the size of this potential market are but two sticking points.

2. Children cost $$$ to educate. What Detroit *really* needs at this point are taxpaying residents who consume very little in the way of services. Who fits that profile?--educated 20-and-30-something professionals and entrepreneurs.

3. The Renaissance Center was an expensive architectural blunder on which even more $$$ was spent to partially undo. You're proposing a regression to this style, but for residential neighborhoods. If one wants to live in an urban environment, he/she is going to want to take advantage of the assets, not feel imprisoned. If anything, Detroit needs greater openness and emphasis on the public realm, not encouraging withdrawal into isolated private enclaves.

[mwilbert]

Then we have two votes for the middle class to stay away from Detroit and allow the city to swirl down the drain rather then benefit from more jobs and tax revenue... unless you have a better idea. Lots of people putting up good ideas here. Have a try.

For some reason you equate families with children with the middle class. As ghettopalmetto pointed out, this is simply mistaken. As we have both pointed out, this is not the logical target market for Detroit living.

However I can provide some ideas. These are things that I believe are actually feasible within an imaginable political context, even if some are not perhaps feasible right now. None of them require large infusions of support from the outside world.

1) The city needs to channel redevelopment into a very limited number of areas. With redevelopment dependent on finite tax credits you can't get critical mass if it spread out all over the place.

2) All abandoned real property should end up in the Detroit land bank, and only disposed of for uses consistent with 1). As I understand it, in general the Wayne County land bank takes the land first, and sells the valuable land itself without regard for the city's priorities. The land they don't want to sell gets passed onto the Detroit land bank. This needs to be changed.

3) The city should allow neighborhoods or groups of neighborhoods to establish special tax districts to raise revenue to pay for additional police protection. This will be only moderately useful if the DPD can't get its act together, although it appears to me that there has been some improvement under the new chief.

4) The DPS district should be eliminated and everyone living in the former district should be given education vouchers. Neighborhoods or groups of neighborhoods should be allowed to create new local school districts in lieu of the vouchers.

5) Michigan needs to assist the city in making sure that city income taxes are paid. What would probably make the most sense is simply to include the city taxes as part of the state returns. This would both save the city money and reduce the likelihood of evasion. This should be extended as an option to all Michigan cities with an income tax.

6) The city needs to make all kinds of permitting efficient. There should be as few barriers to people starting businesses or doing renovations as possible. This is a policy goal which can only happen within a city whose administration improves to some level of competency.

7) The city needs to do a comprehensive revaluation of its property. Current assessed values are not closely related to actual values and this discourages people from purchasing distressed properties. My understanding is that this is underway, although I have no idea if the values they eventually arrive at will be appropriate.

8) This one will not make people happy. It doesn't even make me happy, but I see no way around the fact that Detroit needs a smaller percentage of poor people. One way to do this is to attract new residents, and I certainly want that to happen. One way is to convert poor people into richer people. Eliminating the DPS would probably help the next generation and I have already suggested that. Increases in the state or federal minimum wage, or less likely and less soon, some kind of minimum guaranteed income or jobs program would help the current poor. I expect these things to happen eventually, but they are out of the control of the city. The third way is to make it less attractive for poor people to live in the city. Serious code enforcement, and regular checks for proper car registrations and insurance would make the city relatively less attractive to the impoverished by increasing the cost of living in Detroit. It would also probably reduce the cost of car insurance for the people who actually have it now.

[Vic01]

...Also, gated communities don't solve the problem of schools in any case.

I think that the "gated community" post said "These communities would provide their own security and private schools".

[Vic01]

...Living in a gated community with security and good schools might not be important to you but to each his own.

Why families? Because they are the building blocks of civilizations and Detroit has a deficiency of middle class families. But you bring out a good point. There is no reason that developers couldn't create retirement or other sorts of communities either. I made no mention of drab militarized bunkers. In fact, I mentioned that taxes and jobs created by such developments would benefit the balance of Detroit. We've been waiting for some Democratic Party fairy godmother to start throwing money around Detroit. So far, that hasn't happened. Again, I ask, what ideas do you have to help Detroit recover?

Here's an idea - Let's try multiple "options" at the same time. It seems like many are so against anything "gated", or otherwise not totally free, that they're unwilling to look into it. Why not try one [[or one East Side and West Side) and actually see how it goes... As originally described it sounds like there's some positives to the plan. Who knows, the "educated 20-and-30-something professionals and entrepreneurs" [[referred to in another post) may choose to live there, or not... but why not let 'em have a choice. If you don't like it, don't move there. In 20 yrs we'll see which "plans" have worked best, in the meantime let's be open minded.

At the same time let's try some other options. I saw a couple posts about making houses easier to buy and a 5 yr grace period? to get it up to code, let's look into it.

mwilbert had one - "All abandoned real property should end up in the Detroit land bank, and only disposed of for uses consistent with 1). As I understand it, in general the Wayne County land bank takes the land first, and sells the valuable land itself without regard for the city's priorities. The land they don't want to sell gets passed onto the Detroit land bank. This needs to be changed". Makes sense, let's try it.

[ghettopalmetto]

Here's an idea - Let's try multiple "options" at the same time. It seems like many are so against anything "gated", or otherwise not totally free, that they're unwilling to look into it. Why not try one [[or one East Side and West Side) and actually see how it goes...

There is enough empirical evidence from other cities that makes this type of extreme experimentation unnecessary. Walled and gated compounds are a terrible idea for several reasons:

1. They're isolated from the rest of the city.
2. They scream, "Fear for your life" and "We're not even going to bother policing this area".
3. It's an anti-urban building form. Young professionals, who pay taxes and consume little in services, are moving to older urban neighborhoods across the nation. Given the choice between a suburban subdivision, and an urban subdivision that is even more isolated, the young people are going to choose Elsewhere.

As originally described it sounds like there's some positives to the plan. Who knows, the "educated 20-and-30-something professionals and entrepreneurs" [[referred to in another post) may choose to live there, or not... but why not let 'em have a choice.

In other cities, young people are *choosing* to renovate historic homes, in neighborhoods where they can walk to coffee shops, stores, and restaurants--not locating in walled compounds.

If you don't like it, don't move there. In 20 yrs we'll see which "plans" have worked best, in the meantime let's be open minded.

And they won't.

At the same time let's try some other options. I saw a couple posts about making houses easier to buy and a 5 yr grace period? to get it up to code, let's look into it.

Make houses easier to buy, yes. Code upgrades are only required during construction [[which includes renovation). A grace period on the building code can compromise safety. That's a no-go. This idea does nothing to improve housing stock, and in fact, could allow the existing stock to deteriorate further.

mwilbert had one - "All abandoned real property should end up in the Detroit land bank, and only disposed of for uses consistent with 1). As I understand it, in general the Wayne County land bank takes the land first, and sells the valuable land itself without regard for the city's priorities. The land they don't want to sell gets passed onto the Detroit land bank. This needs to be changed". Makes sense, let's try it.

And there you have it. Southeast Michigan is a chicken coop of competing governments, all scrambling to get their own feed, pecking each other to death in the process.

[mwilbert]

I think that the "gated community" post said "These communities would provide their own security and private schools".

Private schools don't solve the problem. There is nothing stopping people from creating private schools now. Except cost, which putting them inside a gated community does nothing to solve.

[Hermod]

In other cities, young people are *choosing* to renovate historic homes, in neighborhoods where they can walk to coffee shops, stores, and restaurants--not locating in walled compounds.

Does Detroit have a dense concentration of "historic" AND "renovatable" homes that could serve as a sustainable "gentrifiable" neighborhood?

And there you have it. Southeast Michigan is a chicken coop of competing governments, all scrambling to get their own feed, pecking each other to death in the process.

In this case we are talking one county [[Wayne) and one subordinate city [[Detroit) and the myriad of cities in western Wayne County and in Oakland and Macomb are not the issue here.

[mwilbert]

Does Detroit have a dense concentration of "historic" AND "renovatable" homes that could serve as a sustainable "gentrifiable" neighborhood?

That is one thing Detroit does have. In fact, arguably it has too much of it--the effort gets diffused across too many neighborhoods.

[Hypestyles]

unless better public policy [[taxes, employment,education cost, etc.) gets enacted and enforced at the federal and state levels, I’m not sure what strictly-localized efforts are going to do to help that won’t be impeded by macro-level issues. Why set up any new manufacturing operations in Detroit proper when it’s “cheaper ”to do it outside of the country, etc. What’s the percentage of public safety workers who actually live in the city? Why develop region-wide mass transit options when NIMBY and NOOMP typically get the final say?

[Hermod]

That is one thing Detroit does have. In fact, arguably it has too much of it--the effort gets diffused across too many neighborhoods.

That is what I meant. Gentrification requires a concentration of desirable and economically repairable homes that the "urban pioneers" can easily begin regeneration of the neighborhood. All too often in Detroit, the blocks will be half empty and half of the remaining homes will be "teardowns". I don't think the little one and one-half story bungalows which predominate in the newer [[and denser) sections of the city are of that much interest to yuppie gentrifiers.

[oladub]

ghettopalmetto: There is enough empirical evidence from other cities that makes this type of extreme experimentation unnecessary. Walled and gated compounds are a terrible idea for several reasons:

1. They're isolated from the rest of the city.
2. They scream, "Fear for your life" and "We're not even going to bother policing this area".
3. It's an anti-urban building form. Young professionals, who pay taxes and consume little in services, are moving to older urban neighborhoods across the nation. Given the choice between a suburban subdivision, and an urban subdivision that is even more isolated, the young people are going to choose Elsewhere.

This would hardly be an experiment as huge apartment and exclusive residential complexes exist all over the Country. What is so bad about experimenting anyway? What is so bad about the new jobs and taxes such an experiment would produce? Would you rather grow trees?
1. Wherever the middle class has gone already is isolated from the City. Let's try to get them back.
2. Detroit already screams "fear for your life". That's why the middle class avoids it. I'm suggesting carving out safety zones acceptable to the middle class and using tax money thus raised to make the rest of the City safer. [[win-win)
3. Young urban professionals are moving downtown in cities like Minneapolis where it is safe to walk outside at night. Such is not the case in my old neighborhood in Detroit.

In other cities, young people are *choosing* to renovate historic homes, in neighborhoods where they can walk to coffee shops, stores, and restaurants--not locating in walled compounds.

Detroit: what coffee shops? If you noticed, I suggested huge sub-cities of up to 50,000 residents. They would have everything from doctors offices, to private schools and security, to theaters and Menards.

Make houses easier to buy, yes. Code upgrades are only required during construction [[which includes renovation). A grace period on the building code can compromise safety. That's a no-go. This idea does nothing to improve housing stock, and in fact, could allow the existing stock to deteriorate further.

I thought that a house had to be brought up to code before it could be sold in Detroit. Either way, a grace period could also make more sales happen, reduce the number of vacated houses. There is safety and economy in that. I built a house in northern Michigan once in which I camped before all the plumbing and wiring was in. I wouldn't have been able to afford building otherwise. I want to give other young people the same opportunity as I had.

[oladub]

Private schools don't solve the problem. There is nothing stopping people from creating private schools now. Except cost, which putting them inside a gated community does nothing to solve.

Residents of such a community would have the freedom to send their kids to Detroit Public schools. However, the young urban professionals who pay big money to move into downtown Minneapolis head for the suburbs when their kids get to be school age. They are petitioning the Minneapolis school district to build a school downtown for their kids because they find existing public schools' standards unacceptable. We would have to go back to Carter to find a President who sent his kids to a public school. I just mentioned private schools as a temporary solution at least until Detroit Public Schools can match the quality of education found in Montessori schools. From the public school perspective, the increased jobs and tax base of having large gated communities would financially benefit Detroit Public Schools.