Utilities cut to inhabited neighborhoods?

[MrJones]

Through a friend of a friend, I heard that utilities are shutting down “grids� of service in Detroit neighborhoods with people still living in them.
The story is that these blocks in steep decline may have only a few homes left, with mainly renters. If they let their utilities lapse into shutoff, the utilities just cap off the whole area rendering those remaining homes uninhabitable. If they don’t, the neighborhood may be laid with extension cords running from the one house hooked up to power with automobile jumper-cables.

I don’t know how wide spread this is but if I owned rental property, I’d sure like to be aware. Anyone else heard anything?

[sumas]

Would not surprise me. Lived in a flat in GPP. The neighbor upstairs owed money. The utility company wanted in to turn off the power but I would not let them in. I told them legally I could not give them ingress and they should call the landlord for access. They told me they would shut down the whole house. Called my state rep's office and that was the end of that threat.

[Lowell]

Not sure about private utilities, I am guessing they have regulatory hurdles preventing it, but I believe I heard that the city of Flint was discussing ending services to some urban prairie areas. I could see where that would a strong financial argument if a weak political one. The triages are beginning.

[Lorax]

It's another example of our sliding into third-world status. Thanks to the abandonment by our business elite at the expense of those who made them rich and powerful in the first place.

How far off is it until we have anarchy?

I say when ADM and corporate farming interests lobby for an end to our cheap food policy, instituted by FDR. When that happens, then we'll have sub-Saharan African style hunger and political chaos.

[Gannon]

Failure of the food supply is more likely, then we wouldn't have a boogeyman to point towards...but ADM and the rest of those who assault the earth with the scientific approach to farming will be to blame.


As far as this rumored utility cut-off, it is only effective if THEY pull down their own wires, since all they are doing is making copper harvest easier for the scrappers...and reducing their liability from their actions and Mother Nature knocking down lines.


It seems logical that we aggregate the population into serviceable areas near the bus lines and firehouses and police stations...maybe paint a wide red stripe around the areas given back to fallow. Proceed at your own risk.

[jt1]

Through a friend of a friend, I heard that utilities are shutting down “grids� of service in Detroit neighborhoods with people still living in them.
The story is that these blocks in steep decline may have only a few homes left, with mainly renters. If they let their utilities lapse into shutoff, the utilities just cap off the whole area rendering those remaining homes uninhabitable. If they don’t, the neighborhood may be laid with extension cords running from the one house hooked up to power with automobile jumper-cables.

I don’t know how wide spread this is but if I owned rental property, I’d sure like to be aware. Anyone else heard anything?

I doubt this is the case. If the utilities do this I think they need to consider cutting utiltities in rural areas that have density equivalent to these blocks. If number of units is the factor then they should either A) cut off utiltites to people that live in extremely rural areas with no density and people that live on huge estates or B)charge those customers a premium.

I would hope that density in the city is not a justification when density elsewhere is not considered.

[Jason]

I think what your friend had heard about was this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/business/22flint.html

[220hendrie1910]

Rather than cut off services to depleted areas, what would stop the city from sloughing them off by de-annexation and allowing them to revert to the control of Wayne County as unincorporated areas?
Naturally, the city would cease to draw taxes from remaining properties, but it would also be freed of the costs of maintenance and services.
Remaining residents could, if they think it viable, reincorporate or make their own arrangements for lost services, or otherwise, vacate.
[[I'm not aware of Michigan tax laws - would the City of Detroit wind up paying Wayne County property tax on the vacant/abandoned properties that they own?)
- Ross in Ottawa

[gazhekwe]

I like the idea of offering a different house in a more viable area. That would solve the vacant house problem in a more populated area, and it is not hard to imagine that a resident of a sadly deteriorated area would jump at the chance for an even up trade.

[skyl4rk]

The sad thing is that the urban core [[and any existing customer) has always helped pay for expansion of the electrical grid. Ever hear of Rural Electrification? It was a program allowing the electric companies to charge existing customers to subsidize expansion of the grid so no farm was left without electricity. The State of Michigan continues to allow this practice through electric rate adjustments [[increases) that are tied to utility balance sheets that include grid expansion as a normal cost of doing business. The fringe of development has always gotten a break on the cost of their electric infrastructure. Now the old core is told to break even or have the infrastructure removed?

[detroitsgwenivere]

"De-annexation" is not an option. In the world of Risk [[you know the boardgame), land is power, and it's the one resource us Detroiters have left besides water. There are a million and one reasons why we shouldn't give it up. But shutting down large sections of grid is a viable way to cut costs and re-vamp planning. I just think it's suspicious how when home and land values have plummitted is when this option started getting tossed around. Most of the homes in these areas aren't worth the mortar holding them up, so I can't imagine anyone getting a fair return for their properties. And what about the folks who have intentionally invested in these areas with the intention of developing them, like the urban farmers. I wouldn't mind seeing a "greenbelt" formed around the city, with forest preserves, sustainable housing, and farm and garden plots. Imagine our city becoming an emerald jewel instead of being considered an eye-sore infested dump. Dream BIG people!!!!

[Lorax]

This goes back to the green cities initiative, talked about earlier. No sense reverting these areas to unincorporated areas of Wayne County- here in Miami we have a patchwork of unincorporated areas- I live in one, and it's only 15 minutes from downtown!

We pay property taxes to the county, and have no city representation, though we use the fire and police of the regional authority know as Miami-Dade. Our address is considered Miami.

Detroit should return theses areas to greenbelts, with decorative iron fencing surrounding them, using a model already in use in metro-Detroit. Southfield.

Southfield has more dedicated greenspace than most cities in America. That's one reason I bought a home there recently.

New development in Detroit could center around these swaths of greenspace.

Once utilities, roads, sewers and the few remaining structures are removed from these areas, the city would retain ownership, but then they could be planted with local varieties of trees and underbrush, which in a few years time will take over naturally, and provide a wonderful backdrop to that new development.

If they are laid out like the grid pattern of Savannah, where buildings face a dedicated greenspace, it would be a fantastic way to futher redraw the street map of the city. Detroit's greenspaces would be hundreds of acres each, of course, but would be super centers around which to develop residential space. Again, take a look at Southfield and how forward thinking they were as opposed to other inner-ring suburbs.

Perhaps by that time there will be a demand for new residential construction in Detroit.

[Mackinaw]

The state would have the suspend the long-standing 'duty to serve' requirement that attaches to public utilities. If the legislature tried, it would be litigated unsuccessfully. If the city wants to relocate people, they will have to use incentives, buyouts, or perhaps eminent domain [[but what will the designation be if you're trying to remove a handful of productive homes in good condition on the urban prairie? the prairie is a blighted area that affects your lovely home? the area is in need of redevelopment as part of a comprehensive FARMING plan?)[[under County of Wayne v. Hathcock, which reversed the Poletown case, the City would have to be very careful in its condemning)...but the city won't be able to starve/freeze people out of their houses by having the utilities stop service.