Proposal N would mean tearing down 8K homes...

**Zacha341** · September-07-20, 10:52 AM

At a glance for some this seems like a grand idea but not all are agreeing! Thoughts?

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/op...al/5457958002/

https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/det...vaging-8k-more

**Satiricalivory** · September-07-20, 11:26 AM

It's really not a good idea. They have horribly mismanaged the previous demolition plan that was financed by the fed. Now duggan wants to take out big debt in the middle of a pandemic? Heck no.

There has been fierce push-back against this, I expect the vote to fail.

**Ray1936** · September-07-20, 11:57 AM

A bit amazed at how slanted the story is as it appears in The Detroit News. I'd call that an editorial; not a news story. But that's today's media, I guess.

**motorcity** · September-07-20, 11:59 AM

It is a good idea. Too much blight in this city.

**401don** · September-07-20, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Ray1936

A bit amazed at how slanted the story is as it appears in The Detroit News. I'd call that an editorial; not a news story. But that's today's media, I guess.

Bankole is a columnist and it's clearly listed as "an opinion piece, not reflecting the views of The Detroit News."

**iheartthed** · September-07-20, 01:09 PM

The city of Detroit really shouldn't be in the demolition business. Is there any other city on Earth doing something like this?

Duggan should be putting that energy into coordinating a regional land-use policy. The abandonment issue isn't just Detroit's problem anymore, so there should be much more regional political appetite to create a sane solution, instead of each city just demolishing itself.

**Zacha341** · September-07-20, 01:10 PM

Not saying that I agree with what Bankole says here 100%, I don't. But what I find interesting is that when an editorial is agreed upon and supported it IS news, when not, it's not news. Just saying...

Anyway what I want to know is WHO stands to make all the demolition moneys? Follow the rich, getting richer and then you'll often find motive.

Originally Posted by Ray1936

A bit amazed at how slanted the story is as it appears in The Detroit News. I'd call that an editorial; not a news story. But that's today's media, I guess.

Originally Posted by 401don

Bankole is a columnist and it's clearly listed as "an opinion piece, not reflecting the views of The Detroit News."

**Ray1936** · September-07-20, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by 401don

Bankole is a columnist and it's clearly listed as "an opinion piece, not reflecting the views of The Detroit News."

Missed that, Don. Thanks for the heads up.

**Gistok** · September-07-20, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by Ray1936

A bit amazed at how slanted the story is as it appears in The Detroit News. I'd call that an editorial; not a news story. But that's today's media, I guess.

Well that explains why it is under the [OPINION] subheading of the Detroit New online page....

**Dan Wesson** · September-08-20, 07:45 AM

I'll wait till I hear what the folks over at the 'No Bullshit Hour' podcast have to say about it.
Charlie, Karen, Mike and Detroit Red should be all over it sometime soon. If not, somebody should tip them off.

**motorcity** · September-08-20, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by Dan Wesson

I'll wait till I hear what the folks over at the 'No Bullshit Hour' podcast have to say about it.
Charlie, Karen, Mike and Detroit Red should be all over it sometime soon. If not, somebody should tip them off.

They have a great show but Charlie and Mike don't live in Detroit, I believe they both live in Oakland County. And Karen lives in one of Detroit's ritziest neighborhoods, so I'm not sure she can speak for all of Detroit, and certainly not us in less premier neighborhoods stewing in all this blight.

**motorcity** · September-08-20, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by 401don

Bankole is a columnist and it's clearly listed as "an opinion piece, not reflecting the views of The Detroit News."

I believe Bankole and Riddle also thought Duggan was going to lose reelection in 2017. He won nearly 75% of the votes.

**ndavies** · September-08-20, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The city of Detroit really shouldn't be in the demolition business. Is there any other city on Earth doing something like this?

The real problem is the overwhelming size of the issue.

No other city is doing this. However, no other city has 90,000 tax foreclosed residential properties in their landbank. No other city has almost 20,000 empty residential buildings in the landbank. [[that doesn't include the vacant delipidated houses still in private hands.) The second closest is Cleveland with under 8,000 properties in their landbank. No other city in the world has an issue like this.

The landbank doesn't have the funds to mothball all the vacant property in it's possession. They don't even have the funds to keep the lots mowed after the last set of budget cuts they were hit with. So the bond money is needed to stabilize half of these derelict houses and tear the worst ones down.

If you can figure out a way to get all those houses back into tax paying use, they wouldn't need to tear them down. If you bought one it would help the city.

**renf** · September-08-20, 08:34 AM

When Maurice Cox was the city planner a few years ago, he had very sensible plans to revitalize challenged neighborhoods. That is, he sought to rehabilitate homes that could be saved, tear down those that were beyond repair and improve the neighborhood's amenities such as pocket parks and repaired sidewalks. He started in the Fitzgerald neighborhood just west of U of D. I recall visiting Fitzgerald on the day when the Mayor dedicated an attractive new park. Alas, Maurice Cox moved on to accept the appointment as city planner in Chicago. However, there are still some plans to accomplish in other neighborhoods what Maurice Cox started in Fitzgerald.
Does anyone know how the funding sought in Proposal N fits with the systematic plan that Maurice Cox had to revitalize challenged Detroit neighborhoods?

**iheartthed** · September-08-20, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by ndavies

The real problem is the overwhelming size of the issue.

No other city is doing this. However, no other city has 90,000 tax foreclosed residential properties in their landbank. No other city has almost 20,000 empty residential buildings in the landbank. [[that doesn't include the vacant delipidated houses still in private hands.) The second closest is Cleveland with under 8,000 properties in their landbank. No other city in the world has an issue like this.

The landbank doesn't have the funds to mothball all the vacant property in it's possession. They don't even have the funds to keep the lots mowed after the last set of budget cuts they were hit with. So the bond money is needed to stabilize half of these derelict houses and tear the worst ones down.

If you can figure out a way to get all those houses back into tax paying use, they wouldn't need to tear them down. If you bought one it would help the city.

Sounds like landbanks aren't the solution to revitalizing the city then?

I would suggest that the city [[and region) address the actual problem, which has been obvious for decades: sprawl.

**Satiricalivory** · September-08-20, 10:11 AM

The city can't do anything about sprawl, they dont control that obviously.

The state and other counties would have to do something about that and they couldn't give less of a shit.

Maybe Gilbert could lobby Lansing for a greenbelt since the only time this country gets something is when a billionaire wants it.

**ndavies** · September-08-20, 11:23 AM

The land bank is the only solution to the problem. It doesn't matter what you call it, You need a government entity that does the functions the land bank is doing.

Most of these properties ended up in the landbank with encumbered titles. They have tax liens[[that's how they got foreclosed on), water liens and mechanical liens. The land bank cancels past tax liens. They fight with the water department to get water liens released. They take the properties to court to have the mechanical liens quiet titled.

These properties would be unsellable if the land bank didn't get rid of the liens. No developer would go through the costs and headaches of clearing these liens.

**Satiricalivory** · September-08-20, 12:39 PM

Agreed about the land bank. I'm not sure what some people want. Dissolve the land bank and just let these properties magically figure themselves out?

**Richard** · September-08-20, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by renf

When Maurice Cox was the city planner a few years ago, he had very sensible plans to revitalize challenged neighborhoods. That is, he sought to rehabilitate homes that could be saved, tear down those that were beyond repair and improve the neighborhood's amenities such as pocket parks and repaired sidewalks. He started in the Fitzgerald neighborhood just west of U of D. I recall visiting Fitzgerald on the day when the Mayor dedicated an attractive new park. Alas, Maurice Cox moved on to accept the appointment as city planner in Chicago. However, there are still some plans to accomplish in other neighborhoods what Maurice Cox started in Fitzgerald.
Does anyone know how the funding sought in Proposal N fits with the systematic plan that Maurice Cox had to revitalize challenged Detroit neighborhoods?

Same plan,you have to rename things when the old funding runs out,the land bank has a pretty good program with helping funding etc. It really makes it more feasible to buy verses rent.

In the link it does read 8000 demolition 8000 that are rehabilitation potential.

There is a distinct difference between the two supplied links,the second link addressed the concerns of the first link which kinda makes it pointless.

Both published on the same day but worlds apart.

But like others have posted,it will be a bumpy road because it is a unprecedented situation.

**motorcity** · September-08-20, 01:20 PM

I wish they'd carve out perhaps a couple of million a year for routine litter, debris and garbage cleanup on the interstates, interchanges, exits/on-ramps, thoroughfares, and parks. That would elevate the perception of the city just as much as demolitions.

**Zacha341** · September-08-20, 02:17 PM

^ Yes, it is so annoying to see the trash blown about, collected in corners, lots and yards. And folks tossing stuff out their car windows as they drive by. The trash in your neighborhood starts with those living there. Outside of dumping which is also a problem!

**motorcity** · September-08-20, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

^ Yes, it is so annoying to see the trash blown about, collected in corners, lots and yards. And folks tossing stuff out their car windows as they drive by. The trash in your neighborhood starts with those living there. Outside of dumping which is also a problem!

We clean up our neighborhood streets every time we walk the dog but we can't clean up thoroughfares, that requires real manpower.

**iheartthed** · September-08-20, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by ndavies

The land bank is the only solution to the problem. It doesn't matter what you call it, You need a government entity that does the functions the land bank is doing.

Most of these properties ended up in the landbank with encumbered titles. They have tax liens[[that's how they got foreclosed on), water liens and mechanical liens. The land bank cancels past tax liens. They fight with the water department to get water liens released. They take the properties to court to have the mechanical liens quiet titled.

These properties would be unsellable if the land bank didn't get rid of the liens. No developer would go through the costs and headaches of clearing these liens.

Okay, then the land bank alone is not a sufficient policy solution to address the abandonment problem.

**Wesley Mouch** · September-09-20, 01:25 AM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Sounds like landbanks aren't the solution to revitalizing the city then?

I would suggest that the city [[and region) address the actual problem, which has been obvious for decades: sprawl.

Me? Not much of a sprawl guy. I like my Hamtramck better than Troy.

But controlling sprawl means reducing the supply of housing [[or land to build thereon). No sprawl sounds great. More expensive housing not so great.

We're lucky to live somewhere that housing costs are reasonable. Beautiful, mostly peaceful, and sprawl controlled Portland median home value $467,000. Detroit? $36k. And my charming, dense Hamtramck, $106k.

Sprawl rocks.

**Dan Wesson** · September-09-20, 02:17 AM

I have a fondness for Hamtramck as well.
Lot's of goodtimes there. It was much better there than my lower Eastside neighborhood and abode or is that Adobe. :-)