Detroit Demolition Debacle

**O3H** · October-29-17, 09:29 AM

Does demolishing homes help Detroit blight ?

One of former Mayor Dave Bing’s signature programs
was his pledge to demolish 10,000 homes.

Duggan has demolished about 11,500 homes
and wants another 2,000 to 4,000 per year,
making it the nation’s largest blight-removal program.

Detroit lost more than 1 million residents in 60 years.
Perhaps the demolition project needs be UPsized ?

Vacancies in neighborhoods targeted for demolition have
actually increased 64 percent in four years.

**Meddle** · October-29-17, 01:49 PM

Depends on the house and what happens to the property afterwards. Vacant to the point of falling in and being dangerous, they need to go. Many could probably be rehabbed, but by who? Non-resident landlords who only see rent dollars? That doesn't always go well.

I maintain something I've said before. Some of these areas need to be scrubbed below the dirt. Remove the underground pipes, etc. and start over. New developments of 10 or 20 houses on larger lots where there used to be 50 houses. 100-150' wide lots instead of 30-40' lots.

Other areas would be turned over to public or common use plots like parks or gardens.

Just tearing them down, dozing in the basements and leaving them to grow over with weeds doesn't really help.

**O3H** · October-29-17, 03:24 PM

If "they" build it , will someone come ??????

I have severe doubts that even if the houses are quite nice,
on fairly decent lots, with new pipes, utility hook-ups, etc.
- that they will be vacant for a very LONG time.

The days of easy mortgage, no docs, just sign, are over.
Need solid, secure income, to prove the owner can handle payments.
Along with the mortgage comes that Property Tax notice, right ?

**Jason** · October-29-17, 05:00 PM

I think the demolition programs are chasing something which can't be caught. Grass might be better than a crack house but you can't demolish your way into a strong neighborhood. The money would be better spent on renovations and infill projects to truly stabilize specific neighborhoods. Public housing would be very beneficial.

However the demolition money comes from grants and other sources, so they don't have the ability to spend it on whatever they want. And it seems like the house demolition count has become a standard political metric.

**Richard** · October-29-17, 05:55 PM

By removing the worst of the worst it is something that somebody can physically see as happening right now progress,gains confidence while costing the city little out of pocket.

There are really no quick fixes and this will take years to get caught up on but in itself it is a quick fix,like the street lights.Little by little it will all come together.

**Meddle** · October-29-17, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by Jason

Public housing would be very beneficial.

Yeah, Herman Gardens and Brewster worked out so well.

**O3H** · October-29-17, 11:50 PM

If it looks like a dump, it acts like a dump.
I agree with the distinct physical action/reaction scenario.

**Pat001** · November-02-17, 07:49 PM

It's kind of sad that progress is now measured by the number of homes torn down instead of the number of homes built.

**Richard** · November-02-17, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by Pat001

It's kind of sad that progress is now measured by the number of homes torn down instead of the number of homes built.

In a way,yes it is sad,but faced with the doing nothing from the past to doing something to move into the future,the sadness looks for a silver lining,it is just never as fast and easy as many prefer.