YOU are the CZAR

**skyl4rk** · October-26-09, 06:48 PM

You have been appointed Czar of the Detroit Land Bank and have been given thousands of vacant houses and tens of thousands of vacant parcels.

You must do something quickly. Your resources are minimal.

WHAT IS YOUR PLAN?

**cub** · October-26-09, 07:37 PM

I would have a LEGIT auction for 4 weeks. Open to Detroit residents the first week. 2nd week to county residents. 3rd week to Michigan. 4th week to everyone else.
Starting bid $100.

**Ray1936** · October-26-09, 07:45 PM

I would designate members of the City Council as Czardines.

**vetalalumni** · October-26-09, 07:47 PM

I trust Cub and his perspective.

**wolverine** · October-26-09, 07:52 PM

You, as czar would have to work with many other people [[not part of the land bank), and would have to jump through many hoops to even get 1 single home demolished. The plan would be bogged down by so much bureaucracy that you'd wonder why such a seemingly simple task could be so difficult to accomplish.

**BShea** · October-26-09, 09:09 PM

I'd resign immediately because the political fate of this position would be akin to the real fate of the last real czar, Nicholas II of Russia -- shot to death and tossed down a well

**sumas** · October-27-09, 03:12 AM

czardines is hilarious, Thanks Ray for the laugh.

Cubs ideas were pretty good! I would expand the concept to include community groups. As a czardine, I would innitialize legislation to cut through the crap that makes homes unbuyable for sometimes years. I would contract with Habitat for Humanity to gut vacant homes to recycle useable parts to build new homes or at the least put the salvagable parts for resale in their restore shops. Start a local program similar to extreme makeover. Urban prairies don't bother me, so contract with the feds to restore endangered species of birds. Community gardens are also way cool. Detroit once had programs for free seeds which was nixed, it was a cheap program.

**mwilbert** · October-27-09, 08:48 AM

I would start implementing a shrinkage plan. I would [[presumably working with the rest of city government) designate development and "undevelopment" areas. I would not sell any land in the undevelopment areas for anything except agricultural or recreational uses, and I would be inclined only to lease the land for those.

I would trade property in the development areas for property in the undevelopment areas. I would also establish some kind of homesteading program in the development areas. I don't have a clear picture in my mind as to exactly what the homesteading requirements would be, but preference would be given to people living in the undevelopment areas, so as to hasten their emptying.

The goal would be to concentrate the population and commerce of the city in a more reasonable footprint.

**mwilbert** · October-27-09, 08:54 AM

One more thing I forgot--some kind of "block move" program, where a group of homeowners or residents could be relocated as a unit--so that if you have a some friends/relatives/neighbors who are living in an area that you want to shut down, that you try to find them new places in close proximity.

I don't know how often this would be possible, but it seems to me that often people have a few friends in their neighborhood that they can't stand to leave--if you could move them all, it would be a lot less traumatic.

Retroit · October-27-09, 09:05 AM

Most of these homes are vacant because no one wants to live there, so an auction would probably not take many homes off the city's hand.

Vacant homes can be divided into two categories:
1. Those that need to be demolished [[the vast majority), and
2. Those that can be saved and auctioned off.

The first group should be eliminated by Controlled Burn, as much as is safely possible. I would work with the Fire Department to have these homes burnt down to provide a more safe and healthy environment for the existing residents.

Vacant lots would be bundled together into large parcels. I would then work with the various levels of government, housing developers, and financial institutions to rebuild these areas, like Garden Estates [[Herman Gardens).

Urban prairies, wildlife refuges, and farm land are out of the question. This is a city; people should live here.

**mwilbert** · October-27-09, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by Retroit

.
Urban prairies, wildlife refuges, and farm land are out of the question. This is a city; people should live here.

This is just as logical as saying "this is a mall; people should shop here." Unsurprisingly, this does not cause shops to remain in business in malls that don't get enough shoppers.

There are not enough people in metro Detroit to fill all the living space. There are not going to be enough people until there is a lot less living space. Saying that people should live here because it is a city is not really responsive to the issue.

Bearinabox · October-27-09, 11:08 AM

I'm not sure I understand the idea behind "controlled burns." It's messy, it causes air pollution, it forces the already-overworked fire department to take time away from fighting real fires to make sure these stay "controlled," and at the end you're left with a burned-out hulk you still have to bulldoze. It seems much more efficient to just hire a demolition crew and knock down the house.

**Novine** · October-27-09, 11:23 AM

What does an auction accomplish? Let's say there's a mad dash for these cheap parcels and houses. Now you potentially thousands of new property owners, few who likely have any interest in anything other than squatting on the property with the hope that one day, a developer will come forward and want to buy them out. If the properties get assessed down low enough, the taxes become nominal so that people can sit forever on the properties without losing them to tax foreclosure. What's the point of the land bank in the first place then? You may as well have waived the taxes and let the prior owners keep their properties. A bad idea all the way around.

**cub** · October-27-09, 11:24 AM

Ok, as far as the homesteading. I am still working on how we could possibly turn certain areas into agricultural areas. Lets say the area where Jane Cooper school is. [[just an example) Turn that area into agricultural zones. Yes growing veggies and fruits, raising animals. [[small scale, there would have to be some sort of limit) These areas could be extremely off grid and as self -sustaining as possible for example, rain barrels, solar panels, small wind turbines etc.[[tying in the concept of cutting off services to certain areas)
I like some of mwilbert's ideas. Especially the trading of land for people who want to live in these areas. You would get like minded people together. I think it would bring people into the city who want country living in the city. Again my idea is not complete. I still need to come up with a way the city could get some kind of revenue off this idea. I am thinking agricultural tax. Right now the city isn't collecting taxes at all. Maybe they could charge them for upkeep of utility lines water and sewage, electricity, gas if they wanted these utilities.

Retroit · October-27-09, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

I'm not sure I understand the idea behind "controlled burns." It's messy, it causes air pollution, it forces the already-overworked fire department to take time away from fighting real fires to make sure these stay "controlled," and at the end you're left with a burned-out hulk you still have to bulldoze. It seems much more efficient to just hire a demolition crew and knock down the house.

Controlled Burns are used by the forestry service. Instead of just letting forest fires happen when nature [[lightning) or arsonists decide, they have managed fires under controlled conditions.

Since we know that many of the empty homes in Detroit are going to be burnt down anyway...and will cause air pollution anyway...and will take time away from the already overworked fire department who could be fighting real fires anyway...and will be left as burnt-out hulks anyway, why not manage the fires?

By allowing a house to burn completely, instead of throwing water on it as soon as possible, you can greatly reduce the amount remaining.

**RickBeall** · October-27-09, 11:57 AM

I vote for mwilbert as the first land bank Czar. His plan is revolutionary, controversial, humane, and doable.

Retroits "Urban prairies, wildlife refuges, and farm land are out of the question " beliefs lead nowhere except to random empty lots all over the city. This slap-dash reselling is going nowhere.

**skyl4rk** · October-27-09, 12:40 PM

One of the main goals of the Land Bank should be to get people to move into Detroit neighborhoods, not just dispose of property. In particular, young people are needed.

There should be a program where the Land Bank would partner with Wayne State and try to recruit returning military veterans to study at Wayne State and receive a home at very low cost. Ideally, this program would put the veterans all in one neighborhood area, perhaps next to an existing neighborhood such as Woodbridge or Boston Edison. That way they can look out for each other and be the base of neighborhood community. The veterans know how to work as a team to take care of themselves in dangerous situations, so they should be able to self defend the neighborhood.

For those properties which are auctioned off, the first round of auctions should be limited to people who are residents or work in Detroit. Students who are enrolled or accepted into Detroit colleges could also be included in this first round. It may be a good idea to reserve houses for these groups through an owner-occupant sale program.

It may be wise to NOT auction houses on a general basis, but to try to sell houses which can be rehabbed to people who agree to be owner occupants. The problem is that there are so many properties which must be disposed of, and that the houses will rapidly decay when no one takes care of them. So it might be best to select a limited number of homes for owner occupant programs and auction the majority of the properties.

As far as vacant lots go, people should be encouraged to use the lots for gardens. For those lots which are not gardened, the lots should be mowed for hay and the hay should be harvested and sold. If there are large vacant areas, they could be leased on a long term basis to agricultural firms, perhaps maintaining the tax free status which the land bank enjoys.

New development on vacant lots should happen near more developed areas. Lots in largely vacant areas should not be sold for development. The land bank should try to assemble large areas of land in vacant areas. These areas can be held for future development, whatever that may be, and should not be pieced out.

Bearinabox · October-27-09, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

Controlled Burns are used by the forestry service. Instead of just letting forest fires happen when nature [[lightning) or arsonists decide, they have managed fires under controlled conditions.

Since we know that many of the empty homes in Detroit are going to be burnt down anyway...and will cause air pollution anyway...and will take time away from the already overworked fire department who could be fighting real fires anyway...and will be left as burnt-out hulks anyway, why not manage the fires?

By allowing a house to burn completely, instead of throwing water on it as soon as possible, you can greatly reduce the amount remaining.

The forest service does burns because forests are supposed to burn fairly frequently. If you stop a forest from burning for an extended period of time, the next fire, when it happens, will be devastating, because flammable material will have had time to pile up on the forest floor. With a house, if you know it's abandoned and you want it gone, you can just hire a demo crew and knock it down and then it won't burn at all. I guess I'm still not understanding why burning is the best way of knocking down unwanted buildings, once you've identified them as such and jumped through the necessary legal hoops to gain the authority to act.

Retroit · October-27-09, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

The forest service does burns because forests are supposed to burn fairly frequently. If you stop a forest from burning for an extended period of time, the next fire, when it happens, will be devastating, because flammable material will have had time to pile up on the forest floor. With a house, if you know it's abandoned and you want it gone, you can just hire a demo crew and knock it down and then it won't burn at all. I guess I'm still not understanding why burning is the best way of knocking down unwanted buildings, once you've identified them as such and jumped through the necessary legal hoops to gain the authority to act.

How much does it cost to tear down a house and haul it away?
How much does it cost to burn down a house?

**wolverine** · October-27-09, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

Vacant homes can be divided into two categories:
1. Those that need to be demolished [[the vast majority), and
2. Those that can be saved and auctioned off.

The first group should be eliminated by Controlled Burn, as much as is safely possible. I would work with the Fire Department to have these homes burnt down to provide a more safe and healthy environment for the existing residents.

I can't believe I am reading this. Sometimes this forum leaves me speechless. A "controlled" burning as you call it would not cause a house to magically disappear into smoke, as you imply it would. You know.....houses are built out of other things like steel, aluminum, plastics, glass that will be mixed in with all the charred wood that will remain. Who will then clean up the mess of debris? Will it even be cleaned up? Who pays? When does it happen? Will the debris become a neighborhood hazard itself? What about the environment? What about lost materials that could have been salvaged?

Remember anything and everything suggested will have costs associated, and it will require a lot of different parties involved. You can't "just demolish a house", it's a complicated process, which is why we have these land banks to handle that process. I suppose the only way to get rid of it without the red tape is just go out there and do it yourself illegally, but I haven't seen anyone suggest that yet.

**detroitbob** · October-27-09, 08:40 PM

Abdicate as the Bolsheviks invade from Lansing.

**Bobl** · October-27-09, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by Ray1936

I would designate members of the City Council as Czardines.

Perhaps the best line ever on this forum.
Old cops seldom lose their sense of humor...

Retroit · October-27-09, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by wolverine

I suppose the only way to get rid of it without the red tape is just go out there and do it yourself illegally, but I haven't seen anyone suggest that yet.

It's already being done, as if you haven't noticed. I realize that in a "normal" city, Controlled Burns would not be the ideal way of demolishing homes. But is Detroit a normal city? There are tens of thousands of abandoned homes, and they are already being burnt down.

Who will then clean up the mess of debris? Will it even be cleaned up? Who pays? When does it happen? Will the debris become a neighborhood hazard itself? What about the environment? What about lost materials that could have been salvaged?

What happens with houses that are burnt down by arsonists? Does an agent from the city come out and answer all the above questions that you posed?

**DetroitPlanner** · October-27-09, 09:15 PM

Draw a buffer around the schools of about 1/4 mile and major roads of about 1,000 feet and concentrate efforts first in those areas. This will make the areas safer for families with children and beautufy the City at the same time.

Make sure you work with community stakeholders including neighborhood groups, police and fire departments to identify the most serious problems and attack those first.

Enlist the help of the planning, transportation, department of public works, and recreation departments as well as the schools to provide data, input on how to infil for public transport, infrastructure, garbage collection, rodent control, and provide land in areas with little recreational opportunities passive play space for families with children.

Learn what works and what does not and incorporate lessons into continually refining the program. Expand efforts outward from the buffer as funding becomes available and success is measured within the buffered area.

In terms of what to do, teardown the hopeless homes, find developers to take on the salvagable ones, and encourage lot splits for vacant parcels between two existing homes to be taken over by nearby homeowners. This will ensure that the land is cared for, and will increase the value of the existing properties by making areas for gardens or out buildings.

**wolverine** · October-27-09, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

It's already being done, as if you haven't noticed. I realize that in a "normal" city, Controlled Burns would not be the ideal way of demolishing homes. But is Detroit a normal city? There are tens of thousands of abandoned homes, and they are already being burnt down.

What happens with houses that are burnt down by arsonists? Does an agent from the city come out and answer all the above questions that you posed?

"No" to both of your questions above, but it's good reason for people to continue leaving the city, unless you find living next to a pile of debris acceptable. Wow, you've tried to justify arson now as part of the solution? Because "they are already being burnt down"