Duh?: Only way to stop Detroit blight is to ease up on suburban development

[iheartthed]

File this under common sense:

The Detroit Blight Removal Task Force recently released its report documenting more than 40,000 blighted structures in the city.
...
Unfortunately, although a tumor can be removed, blight is an ongoing process that will continue even if all its visible symptoms are temporarily eradicated. The hard truth is that even if we somehow erased, instantaneously, all blight in Detroit tomorrow, a year from now, we would have thousands of newly blighted structures littering the city.

Blight in Detroit is fundamentally the result of processes at work outside of the city’s boundaries. Since 1950, two-thirds of the city’s population has systematically been siphoned off by the region’s housing “disassembly line.” In the tri-county metro area, developers have in every decade since 1950 built many more dwellings — an average of more than 10,000 per year — than the net growth in households required. Developers figured that their new suburban subdivisions could successfully compete against the older housing stock. They were right. As households filled these new dwellings they vacated their previous homes, which other households decided to occupy because they were viewed as superior options to where they were previously living.

As this sequential moving up-and-out process continued, it inevitably vacated the oldest, least-competitive dwellings located in the least-desirable neighborhoods in the region. These places were overwhelmingly located in Detroit. Owners of these perpetually vacant properties could find neither tenants nor buyers. Thus they ceased paying property taxes or maintaining the structures and, eventually, abandoned them. Detroit’s blight is thus fundamentally a symptom of a speculative, uncontrolled residential development process in the suburbs.

To cure Detroit’s blight, Michigan must establish a metropolitan growth boundary, which would prohibit, for a specified period, new development outside of the existing urbanized footprint.

http://www.freep.com/article/2014060...Detroit-blight

[ndavies]

Yes, Instead of improving the conditions that are making everyone flee the city, Let's ignore peoples free will and force them to live where the government says they should live.

[[By the way that was complete sarcasm. If you fix the problems that are driving the middle class out of the city, you won't need artificial growth limits. Things like reducing crime, reducing tax rates, reducing development hassles and fixing the schools.)

[DetroitPlanner]

Either that or develop more jobs, allow immigration. Growth boundaries however have inherent flaws. People seem to jump them making the sprawl worse as well as the need to expand infrastructure even more pronounced. It is better to stop all of the sub communities from competing against each other and work for common goals. Easier said than done though.

[Bham1982]

Hilariously bad idea, and totally disregards any concept of Econ 101.

You have an area that is inherently undersirable, with property values approaching zero. You have peripheral areas that are extremely desirable, with high property values. The idea that you make the crappy area nicer by making the nice areas crappier is absurd.

Obviously people will not abandon the idea of good schools, safe streets, reliable services, and nice housing, they will just move to beyond the growth boundary. The sprawl would grow worse, it would just be separated from older communities by a greenbelt, rather than being contiguous.

[313WX]

lol at that last paragraph.

Better 60 years late than never I suppose...

[iheartthed]

Yes, Instead of improving the conditions that are making everyone flee the city, Let's ignore peoples free will and force them to live where the government says they should live.

Unless you're talking about the free will of developers to subsidize the costs of their racket onto unsuspecting townships, implementing sprawl control policies does not impede anyone's free will.

[ghettopalmetto]

The arguments about "desirability" would make sense if the "desirability" of certain areas didn't fluctuate over time. We're supposed to believe that inner-ring suburbs were desirable in the 1950s, but for some mysterious reason, not so much anymore. We're supposed to believe that Romeo is "desirable" now, even though that hasn't always been the case. WHY? What factors are at work to alter the "desirability" of some areas over others? Is it simple free-market economics, or has the heavy hand of government tilted the equation?

I find it absurdly hilarious, however, that everyone who has commented on growth boundaries just *knows* that it won't work, without so much a comment on the Ann Arbor greenbelt [[or those in Oregon). I'm pretty sure that Pulte Homes et. al. don't need support of the general proletariat to continue raping the land for excessive construction of speculative vinyl-sided tract homes. We'll just ignore those surplus 10,000 homes per year, and pretend that everything is all the fault of the City of Detroit.

I think it's pretty well-documented that even in the Big Bad City of Detroit, there were "good schools, safe streets, reliable services, and nice housing" in the 1940s and 1950s. So obviously, people left for other reasons, yes?

[Detroitnerd]

Yes, Instead of improving the conditions that are making everyone flee the city, Let's ignore peoples free will and force them to live where the government says they should live.

Oh, hogwash. People opposed to sensible development and regional planning always resort to imagery of the People's Soviet telling Frank Rizzo he has to move into the ghetto. We'll all be much better off when the generation that lived through that bussing stuff dies off...

Ignoring that false dichotomy, look at what a region in which policy is dictated by developers hath wrought. Why are developers totally in the driver's seat in this region? They want to build newer housing always on the greenfields at the periphery and saddle us with crushing collective costs to provide for these new areas, even as the tax base rolls downhill behind it. Good for them; not so good for the rest of us. Meanwhile, our "regional planning organizations" are just rubber stamps for big developers. Companies like Pulte decide where people are going to move over the next 10 years, and SEMCOG just draws a bull's-eye around it like it was supposed to happen that way.

Like it or not, we're all in this together. Maybe you think it makes sense to go to the shoe salesman and ask him if you need new shoes every week. He'll keep telling you you do.

And the alternative isn't to go shoeless by the dictat of the Housing Commisariat. That's just silly radio talk.

[Bham1982]

Really, if we were to implement a growth limits, it should be on the least desirable and economically efficient land. By this point, it would probably make more "smart growth" sense to stop new investment in Detroit, then to stop new investment in exurbs. Just ban new housing south of 8 Mile and east of Telegraph, and there's your "smart growth".

But this would never be proposed by "smart growth" advocates. They want to ban housing on the most desirable and economically efficient land, and think it will force people to move to undesirable locations.

[ghettopalmetto]

Really, if we were to implement a growth limits, it should be on the least desirable and economically efficient land.

I completely agree. Areas with one house per acre, that require hundreds of millions of dollars in new roads, schools, utilities and services, are hardly economically efficient.

[Bham1982]

I completely agree. Areas with one house per acre, that require hundreds of millions of dollars in new roads, schools, utilities and services, are hardly economically efficient.

That sounds like most of the bombed-out neighborhoods of inner city Detroit. Brightmoor is a perfect example for smart growth advocates.

I'm not aware any newer suburbs that have one-acre minimums. Generally speaking, older suburbs have much larger lots than newer suburbs. Brand new subdivisions tend to have tiny lots compared to those from the 1950's, 60's and 70's. Just compare a 60's era Pulte development to one being built now.

[iheartthed]

Really, if we were to implement a growth limits, it should be on the least desirable and economically efficient land. By this point, it would probably make more "smart growth" sense to stop new investment in Detroit, then to stop new investment in exurbs. Just ban new housing south of 8 Mile and east of Telegraph, and there's your "smart growth".

But this would never be proposed by "smart growth" advocates. They want to ban housing on the most desirable and economically efficient land, and think it will force people to move to undesirable locations.

You're just being an ass. Smart growth means limiting growth to within the developed area, which you already know.

[Bham1982]

You're just being an ass. Smart growth means limiting growth to within the developed area, which you already know.

Obviously my comment was tongue-in-cheek and unrealistic, but the point is that most of Detroit is no longer really "developed". It would probably make the most economic sense to "downsize" Detroit, while keeping the subsidized potemkin villages of downtown and midtown, than it would to try and thwart development in areas with high property values and high demand.

[iheartthed]

Obviously my comment was tongue-in-cheek and unrealistic, but the point is that most of Detroit is no longer really "developed". It would probably make the most economic sense to "downsize" Detroit, while keeping the subsidized potemkin villages of downtown and midtown, than it would to try and thwart development in areas with high property values and high demand.

The point is that if you limit the development zone then the blight would take care of itself. You wouldn't even need these half-thought "right-sizing" initiatives.

[Bham1982]

The point is that if you limit the development zone then the blight would take care of itself. You wouldn't even need these half-thought "right-sizing" initiatives.

Well I don't agree, at all. The blight in Detroit is due to lack of demand, not due to developers building 600k homes in Novi. If you stop developers from building new subdivisions in Novi, it won't do a thing for anyone in Dexter Davison, you will just be giving a gift to Livingston County and other outer counties, as the development spreads further out.

[iheartthed]

Well I don't agree, at all. The blight in Detroit is due to lack of demand, not due to developers building 600k homes in Novi. If you stop developers from building new subdivisions in Novi, it won't do a thing for anyone in Dexter Davison, you will just be giving a gift to Livingston County and other outer counties, as the development spreads further out.

If they do it wrong, maybe.

[nain rouge]

To tell you the truth, the most efficient way to coordinate development in Metro Detroit would be to concentrate investments in Detroit's historic urban core [[generally, within Grand Boulevard, with a few exceptions on the old west side) and the inner ring suburbs. Though it'd theoretically make more sense to have continuous development, we have to accept that huge chunks of Detroit are now essentially irredeemable. Sure, you could make Brightmoor livable again, but the cost would be significantly greater than fully rehabilitating and improving Redford. You have to work with what you've got, as they say.

I'd be willing to classify some of Detroit's nicer outer neighborhoods as inner ring suburbs, but eventually there'd have to be a cutoff where you say streets with only one or two viable residences aren't worth salvaging.

I'd also cut off nearly all exurbs from further development, although selective infill would still be appropriate. People would hate that, but eventually we have to realize that the wide chunks of the region will eventually go bankrupt if we keep this up. Detroit was the first domino, that's all. Given current trends, where do you see cities like Warren in 40 years? Overdevelopment has to stop. We can only run from the realities of it for so long.

[BankruptcyGuy]

I find it absurdly hilarious, however, that everyone who has commented on growth boundaries just *knows* that it won't work, without so much a comment on the Ann Arbor greenbelt [[or those in Oregon).

The Ann Arbor greenbelt was a miserable failure, enriching farmers to the benefit of no one, and paying for development that wasn't going to occur anyway. Taking $30MM and dropping over Ann Arbor via helicopter would have been a much, much better way to distribute that money.

[Bham1982]

And sprawl just leapfrogged the Ann Arbor greenbelt. There's a TON of sprawl in the townships surrounding Ann Arbor, but just not right by the freeway loop.

[corktownyuppie]

I don't have all the answers to this. And certainly, I've been fine with the idea of picking the most sustainable neighborhoods in the city and re-allocating all resources toward making them successful. Greenbelts have mixed reviews, as per BankruptcyGuy. And I also don't believe that forcing developers to stop expanding won't necessary fix the blight problem in the city.

Howeva...

I do think that it would make sense to have some kind of tri-country partnership or consortium that would set some overarching policies about land use and sprawl.

And even if you are a total free market libertarian, then to be ideologically consistent, you can't support expansion in development while letting them off the hook and having them subsidize the costs of infrastructure and city services.

So many of our problems from roads to water to even police and fire could have been alleviated if we had chosen to build upward instead of outward. If you want to develop at 28 mile and Hayes, have at it....but you need to pick up the costs. Not just the houses, not just the roads, but even your share of increased police, fire, water, sewer, and every other civil service whose expenses will now have to increase.

And not just the up-front capital cost. The on-going operating costs of both the new development and some share of the operating costs of what you are leaving behind, too. Because you're not just paying for the cost of the new roads, but you're also leaving old roads behind on the backs of people who are living there. Assuming that you also need those new roads to connect to the old roads and for those old roads to still be functional, you should still have to pick up some share of that too.

[Wesley Mouch]

To tell you the truth, the most efficient way to coordinate development in Metro Detroit would be to concentrate investments in Detroit's historic urban core [[generally, within Grand Boulevard, with a few exceptions on the old west side) and the inner ring suburbs. Though it'd theoretically make more sense to have continuous development, we have to accept that huge chunks of Detroit are now essentially irredeemable. Sure, you could make Brightmoor livable again, but the cost would be significantly greater than fully rehabilitating and improving Redford. You have to work with what you've got, as they say.

I'd be willing to classify some of Detroit's nicer outer neighborhoods as inner ring suburbs, but eventually there'd have to be a cutoff where you say streets with only one or two viable residences aren't worth salvaging.

I'd also cut off nearly all exurbs from further development, although selective infill would still be appropriate. People would hate that, but eventually we have to realize that the wide chunks of the region will eventually go bankrupt if we keep this up. Detroit was the first domino, that's all. Given current trends, where do you see cities like Warren in 40 years? Overdevelopment has to stop. We can only run from the realities of it for so long.

Nain, while I'm glad to see anyone say we have to be selective -- I think we're much better if we just get the city to enable and empower development than pick and choose winners and losers. Government may have some role in downtown redevelopment -- although when it does you get Stadia that all here hate. But in the hoods, there's no real role for government beyond infrastructure -- and elimination of barriers to innovation. So a goat farm arrives -- and we find existing rules to chase it away. Same is true for most any attempt to do something in Detroit. Too many reasons to say no. Not enough to say 'let's try that and see what happens'.

As my friend John once said: "Get the hell out of my way".

[nain rouge]

Nain, while I'm glad to see anyone say we have to be selective -- I think we're much better if we just get the city to enable and empower development than pick and choose winners and losers. Government may have some role in downtown redevelopment -- although when it does you get Stadia that all here hate.

Detroit's corrupt bureaucracy is a mess and has certainly done the city few favors. That said, I think we ought to know by now what a government subsidized free market leads to - exactly what you see today. Destructive levels of sprawl.

I'm against making development illegal or prohibited in the exurbs. That stands against American values. What I'd like to see is access to public money and infrastructure blocked. You want to live on 30 Mile? Fine. But get your own water, electricity, and roads. As it is, those people are mooching off the government as much as the types of people they hypocritically despise in Detroit.

[Detroitnerd]

We have been picking winners and losers -- that's our regional nightmare in a nutshell...

[Bham1982]

What I'd like to see is access to public money and infrastructure blocked. You want to live on 30 Mile? Fine. But get your own water, electricity, and roads.

They are already paying for their own electricity, water and roads. You aren't directly paying for these improvements unless you live there.

When a new subdivision is built, either A. the builder pays for the infrastrucure improvements and charges the new homeowners or B. the township pays for the improvements and puts a special assessment on the new homes being served by the improvements.

[iheartthed]

The Ann Arbor greenbelt was a miserable failure, enriching farmers to the benefit of no one, and paying for development that wasn't going to occur anyway. Taking $30MM and dropping over Ann Arbor via helicopter would have been a much, much better way to distribute that money.

Huh? Ann Arbor has had experienced quite a bit of infill development since the greenbelt.