plan to shut off water failed, next plan? just foreclose on them. 80k in wayne county

[compn]

Everyone remembers that plan to shut water off and hope people give up and run away?
that failed when it became a global news story.

Water shutoffs being inhumane and all, but foreclosures arent inhumane. its just business as usual.
the new plan? cant take the water, might as well take the entire house.

You're right, they weren't paying taxes, so how were they helping the city/county at all? they still buy food [[presumably) in the city, thus the food business pays taxes. if you remove 80k people ability to live here , wont that affect all other businesses ?

80k more bank/county owned properties with no way to secure them against scrappers.

What about rick Snyder's plan to get 50k people to move to Detroit? is that before or after foreclosing on 100k properties in the past 2 years and 80k properties next year?

http://motorcitymuckraker.com/2014/1...00-properties/

[Danny]

Either its from water shut-offs to building foreclosures, creditors want their money now!

[DetroitPlanner]

Do you really want your city to be full of people that don't pay their bills? I get that there are people out there that are poor, but they should not be trying to live independently off the backs of everyone else. They should be pooling their resources with other family members like most people do who are in over their heads.

You are not teaching people to fish if you give them fish.

[Chicago48]

Do you really want your city to be full of people that don't pay their bills? I get that there are people out there that are poor, but they should not be trying to live independently off the backs of everyone else. They should be pooling their resources with other family members like most people do who are in over their heads.

You are not teaching people to fish if you give them fish.

The city, after foreclosing should then rent the properties back to the ex-owners.

[Scottathew]

The city, after foreclosing should then rent the properties back to the ex-owners.

The city should not try to be a residential landlord, it's having a hard enough time just being a city.

Generally rent on a house is going to be more than what the mortgage was. So if they couldn't afford it before, they can't afford it as a rental.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

The city should not try to be a residential landlord, it's having a hard enough time just being a city.

Generally rent on a house is going to be more than what the mortgage was. So if they couldn't afford it before, they can't afford it as a rental.

How do you figure that? Most Detroit properties rent anywhere from $500 to $1,000 and up, depending on condition and location. Sounds cheaper than a mortgage to me, unless you're talking about the better neighborhoods such as Green Acres, Rosedale Park, Grandmont, etc...

[Scottathew]

So there should be no recourse for when people don't pay their taxes, mortgages, water bills, etc...?

I just don't see how a world like that operates. Next you'll be expecting people to pay for their groceries before they walk out of the grocery store. But food is a human right!

[DetroitPlanner]

So there should be no recourse for when people don't pay their taxes, mortgages, water bills, etc...?

I just don't see how a world like that operates. Next you'll be expecting people to pay for their groceries before they walk out of the grocery store. But food is a human right!

You have to not pay ANY taxes for almost four years before they foreclose. How much time you want to give them?

[SpartanDawg]

These people SHOULD be paying their taxes and I will be happy to see them foreclosed on. THEY are the reason detroit has dug itself so damn deep into a hole. If you can't afford to pay your taxes, guess what, you shouldn't be living there. that simple.
move to somewhere cheaper and get the hell out of our city// move to a cheaper neighborhood.

Cry and moan all you want about 'kicking people out' and 'gentrification'... i'm sick of seeing detroit not progress for the past 30 years because of losers like these people who don't pay their taxes. I'm extremely happy about this

[rex]

If you can't afford to pay your taxes, guess what, you shouldn't be living there. that simple.
move to somewhere cheaper and get the hell out of our city// move to a cheaper neighborhood.

I dont disagree with your message but where are you going to find cheaper neighborhoods in America?

[lpg]

When people don't pay their DTE bills, water bills, taxes, etc. , the cost is passed along in some way to those who do. Higher bills or cuts in services. I don't mind helping, but I draw the line at people who think that everything is a God given right and therefore needs to be provided at no cost.

[dmike76]

Pay your bills and it's not a problem. I'm with lpg. I don't mind some limited welfare/assistance or whatever, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Water is not a human right and a house is definitely not a human right. There are plenty of apartments out there for rent.

[Wesley Mouch]

Pay your bills and it's not a problem. I'm with lpg. I don't mind some limited welfare/assistance or whatever, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Water is not a human right and a house is definitely not a human right. There are plenty of apartments out there for rent.

I'm a proud libertarian, but this 'rights' argument is absurd. Proof that the UN is a sick organization.

There's no right to housing or water, IMO. But I think we do have a social obligation to provide shelter and water to those who can't help themselves. I've no problem with socially provided dormitories with drinking fountains. But providing a detached home with an unlimited supply of municipal water? Free refills at all city offices for 1-gallon jugs. Of course.

[401don]

I was looking at the Dansville, NY. website for personal reasons and thought this was amusing. The mayor discusses what a wonderful little village it is. Scroll down a little further and bam - water shutoffs for non-payment! Think Dansville will make the national news?

www.dansvilleny.us

[poobert]

http://motorcitymuckraker.com/2014/1...00-properties/

everyone remembers that plan to shut water off and hope people give up and run away?
that failed when it became a global news story.

water shutoffs being inhumane and all, but foreclosures arent inhumane. its just business as usual.
the new plan? cant take the water, might as well take the entire house.

you're right, they werent paying taxes, so how were they helping the city/county at all? they still buy food [[presumably) in the city, thus the food business pays taxes. if you remove 80k people ability to live here , wont that affect all other businesses ?

80k more bank/county owned properties with no way to secure them against scrappers.

what about rick snyders plan to get 50k people to move to detroit? is that before or after foreclosing on 100k properties in the past 2 years and 80k properties next year?

I echo what everyone else here has said. However, I'd like to add:

You're full of complaints but no solutions.

Listen, I live in the city and pay my own way. Then again, I have a middle class job. However, I know a guy across the street who has a lot of issues but has worked out a tax payment plan with the county. He's back on his taxes but works his ass off and worked with the county to stay in his home.

The question, I believe, is how to bring those resources and solutions TO the people who are behind or unable to pay. My only real complain with the water shutoff is that they seemed to introduce more of the programs to help people after they started shutoffs.

That said, if you're not going to pay, you're not going to stay.

[Dan Wesson]

When these go to auction you are going to find out just what the fair market value of these properties are.

Tax auctions are fun to attend unless they get bundled up like they did in Macomb. Last year?

It has been said two things you can't escape Death and Taxes.

But really not paying your property taxes indicates what value the scofflaw places on the Law, their place in the community and the property they are also neglecting.

If they can't cut the mustard then let de-evolution happen. Tough luv.

[313WX]

As a taxpaying citizen who has the pleasure of living in neighborhoods of the city that will be affected, I only have two questions:

1. What will happen to these people once their properties are foreclosed on? The suburbs certainly aren't going to welcome them and I highly doubt they'll suddenly start paying their bills.

2. Who will replace these people once their properties are foreclosed on? Won't the remaining residents simply have to contend with more abandoned properties that will further drag down their property values? Why would folks who pay their bills move into these homes when they can choose other communities that are much safer and offer better municipal services?

Are we just going to take the "let the chips fall where there may" approach we've been taking for the past 50 years?

[Kevgoblue]

As a taxpaying citizen who has the pleasure of living in neighborhoods of the city that will be affected, I only have two questions:

1. What will happen to these people once their properties are foreclosed on? The suburbs certainly aren't going to welcome them and I highly doubt they'll suddenly start paying their bills.

2. Who will replace these people once their properties are foreclosed on? Won't the remaining residents simply have to contend with more abandoned properties that will further drag down their property values? Why would folks who pay their bills move into these homes when they can choose other communities that are much safer and offer better municipal services?

Are we just going to take the "let the chips fall where there may" approach we've been taking for the past 50 years?

This is the true issue. No matter how much of a "get tough" stance we take, the people who are not paying their bills will still exist. The only question is, where?

Given that most of the local suburbs will not be excited over the ideas of the non bill payers moving into their jurisdiction....where do they go? You can kick them out, but they won't disappear. They will merely be displaced and go someplace else.

So rather than continuously attacking the symptom [[people not paying their bills), at what time do we address the problem [[people not being economically functional members of the community)?

[corktownyuppie]

This is the true issue. No matter how much of a "get tough" stance we take, the people who are not paying their bills will still exist. The only question is, where?

Given that most of the local suburbs will not be excited over the ideas of the non bill payers moving into their jurisdiction....where do they go? You can kick them out, but they won't disappear. They will merely be displaced and go someplace else.

So rather than continuously attacking the symptom [[people not paying their bills), at what time do we address the problem [[people not being economically functional members of the community)?

I agree with the general sentiment of both you and 313WX. Though I have a few things that are a little bit different.

[[1) It's not clear what number of people truly cannot afford housing [[or water) and what number simply has chosen to prioritize their money incorrectly. I think that we may need to see this process through in order to really get a handle on who can afford their taxes [[and water) vs. which people are just trying to work the system.

[[2) In absolute terms, I don't think anyone -- rich or poor -- should be without water or shelter. HOWEVA. I do believe that the privilege of private homeownership -- as well as unlimited, purified, directly-delivered-to-every-spigot-in-your-house water -- needs to be reserved for those who have the economic means of supporting the financial costs of doing so.

We saw what happens when people don't pay their way. Services suffer. Infrastructure suffers. Everyone suffers.

Now out of both a) self-interest [[it does no good for me to be surrounded by people who lack access to shelter or water for obvious reasons) and b) moral obligation [[I think our society has enough resources that if we can alleviate the level of suffering we see in the 3rd worlds, we should), I believe that we do need to talk about a global solution for how we handle the poorest of the poor.

BUT....

That does *not*, in ANY terms, mean that I believe everyone should just be given a blank check on water service or on homeownership. This means that perhaps the people who cannot pay for water get rationed water supplies once per week the same way we used to pick up government cheese once a month. Maybe it means that the churches with a ton of money use their wealth to buy up a whole block of homes in foreclosure and use it to house the homeless. Maybe it means that that more people will have to share homes.

I think we can find solutions but we need to:

[[1) end the BS "we-are-entitled-to-have-things-because-we-are-accustomed-to-having-things" nonsense.

[[2) end the "out-of-principle-I-refuse-to-acknowledge-these-problems-nor-take-any-interest-or-responsibility-to-finding-a-creative-solution" yelling.

So if you're an admitted socialist, or if you're a card-carrying tea-party sympathizer, get the he** out of here. The rest of us are trying to find a way to make this city work. Both of the extreme, fundamental views here are not helpful.

Nobody wants another 80,000 abandoned homes or another 200,000 people in the street. We need to "let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may for a little while to see who is really poor and how many were using tax money [[which the city wasn't enforcing) to pay for cable [[which Comcast was enforcing).

Why would folks who pay their bills move into these homes when they can choose other communities that are much safer and offer better municipal services?

When prices get low enough, the people who have real money see an opportunity not just to buy a home, but to rebuild a neighborhood and make some money. And that's what needs to happen. Investors need to move in in order to create a tax base again.

at what time do we address the problem [[people not being economically functional members of the community)?

We need to set up systems to remediate individuals to help them become economically functional. Even if it's at the most elementary level, everyone can do something. There are streets full of trash that need cleaning. We have entire blocks that really need 24-hour patrol to stop theft. We have a light rail to build, trees to farm, even vegetables and produce to farm.

But at the same time, the people who aren't economically functional need to be interested in working. And for the people who simply don't want to change? Then they will be left behind, it's that simple.

[That Great Guy]

I agree with the general sentiment of both you and 313WX. Though I have a few things that are a little bit different.

[[1) It's not clear what number of people truly cannot afford housing [[or water) and what number simply has chosen to prioritize their money incorrectly. I think that we may need to see this process through in order to really get a handle on who can afford their taxes [[and water) vs. which people are just trying to work the system.

[[2) In absolute terms, I don't think anyone -- rich or poor -- should be without water or shelter. HOWEVA. I do believe that the privilege of private homeownership -- as well as unlimited, purified, directly-delivered-to-every-spigot-in-your-house water -- needs to be reserved for those who have the economic means of supporting the financial costs of doing so.

We saw what happens when people don't pay their way. Services suffer. Infrastructure suffers. Everyone suffers.

Now out of both a) self-interest [[it does not good for me to be surrounded by people who lack access to shelter or water for obvious reasons) and b) moral obligation [[I think our society has enough resources that if we can alleviate the level of suffering we see in the 3rd worlds, we should), I believe that we do need to talk about a global solution for how we handle the poorest of the poor.

BUT....

That does *not*, in ANY terms, mean that I believe everyone should just be given a blank check on water service or on homeownership. This means that perhaps the people who cannot pay for water get rationed water supplies once per week the same way we used to pick up government cheese once a month. Maybe it means that the churches with a ton of money use their wealth to buy up a whole block of homes in foreclosure and use it to house the homeless. Maybe it means that that more people will have to share homes.

I think we can find solutions but we need to:

[[1) end the BS "we-are-entitled-to-have-things-because-we-are-accustomed-to-having-things" nonsense.

[[2) end the "out-of-principle-I-refuse-to-acknowledge-these-problems-nor-take-any-interest-or-responsibility-to-finding-a-creative-solution" yelling.

So if you're an admitted socialist, or if you're a card-carrying tea-party sympathizer, get the he** out of here. The rest of us are trying to find a way to make this city work. Both of the extreme, fundamental views here are not helpful.

Nobody wants another 80,000 abandoned homes or another 200,000 people in the street. We need to "let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may for a little while to see who is really poor and how many were using tax money [[which the city wasn't enforcing) to pay for cable [[which Comcast was enforcing).



[/I][/COLOR]When prices get low enough, the people who have real money see an opportunity not just to buy a home, but to rebuild a neighborhood and make some money. And that's what needs to happen. Investors need to move in in order to create a tax base again.



[/COLOR]We need to set up systems to remediate individuals to help them become economically functional. Even if it's at the most elementary level, everyone can do something. There are streets full of trash that need cleaning. We have entire blocks that really need 24-hour patrol to stop theft. We have a light rail to build, trees to farm, even vegetables and produce to farm.

But at the same time, the people who aren't economically functional need to be interested in working. And for the people who simply don't want to change? Then they will be left behind, it's that simple.

We have a light rail to build? Really?

There must be something in your water?

How about voting in leaders who can bring real jobs that pay a decent wage with benefits to Detroit? Why can't Detroit snag a large manufacturing plant like other cities do?

[corktownyuppie]

We have a light rail to build? Really?

There must be something in your water?

I'm not sure what you mean by this, so I don't have a response.

How about voting in leaders who can bring real jobs that pay a decent wage with benefits to Detroit? Why can't Detroit snag a large manufacturing plant like other cities do?

I'm not sure the jobs you are talking about even exist in the the numbers you'd like them to. But even if they did exist, the reasons why manufacturers are not interested in coming here have been well-known for a long time.

- Rampant absenteeism
- Rampant substance abuse
- Mediocre work ethic at best
- Rampant absenteeism

Did I mention rampant absenteeism and mediocre work ethic? Absenteeism in city employment is so bad that on any given day, 30% of the employees call in.

“We have 30% more employees than we need, only because we know that 30% won’t come into work everyday. You can’t operate like that,” Brown said.

But it's not that surprising. The culture of absenteeism goes all the way back to when people are in school.

Detroit Public Schools ranked last among 21 big-city districts in attendance rates, according to a study that linked absenteeism to poor performance on the National Assessment for Educational Progress exam.
The study by Attendance Works found 30 percent of DPS fourth-graders and 33 percent of eighth-graders missed three or more days of school the month before taking the NAEP in 2013. Students who missed that much time scored 9 points lower, on average, than students who missed no class time.


“In Detroit, for instance, about a third of the students reported missing three or more days in the past month, compared to the 20 percent national average,” the study said.


From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz3GV1TCOV1

Now what is the solution to this? I don't know. But I think the first step is to understand that WE need to change as a community before OTHERS will be interested in moving to Detroit and employing us in large numbers.

[Richard]

We have a light rail to build? Really?

There must be something in your water?

How about voting in leaders who can bring real jobs that pay a decent wage with benefits to Detroit? Why can't Detroit snag a large manufacturing plant like other cities do?

Because as seen on here most residents seem to be more excited about turning a factory into lofts and nightclubs showing that's what they support.

One was rezoned industrial to insure its use as a job producing factory but because of the cry to demolish became so loud it was rushed to sale to become a go cart track,I guess a attendant there could command a livable wage.

Do not pay your property tax for 3 years and the house comes up for tax sale is common across the country as is liens and possiable sale for not paying your water bill,if you do not then what is the incentive to pay and then those who do pay for everybody else for services,CoD does not seem to have that problem.

Seems like a lot of things people are freaking out about is the city catching up with the rest of the country,that in itself is a good thing and progress.

[Wesley Mouch]

This is the true issue. No matter how much of a "get tough" stance we take, the people who are not paying their bills will still exist. The only question is, where?

Given that most of the local suburbs will not be excited over the ideas of the non bill payers moving into their jurisdiction....where do they go? You can kick them out, but they won't disappear. They will merely be displaced and go someplace else.

So rather than continuously attacking the symptom [[people not paying their bills), at what time do we address the problem [[people not being economically functional members of the community)?

Some of them will pay their water bill, and stay right where they are. My guess is that at least 40% of those who are delinquent could pay. Maybe its only 10%. But even 10% reduction in delinquencies would make a difference.

[Dan Wesson]

This is the true issue. No matter how much of a "get tough" stance we take, the people who are not paying their bills will still exist. The only question is, where?

Leviticus 25:3

“If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you.

[Honky Tonk]

Leviticus 25:3

“If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you.

Isn't Leviticus the company that makes A/C recepticles and light switches?