Detroit's plan gets national endorsement

[iheartthed]

Tear Down That House

By PAUL O’NEILL
Published: December 8, 2009

PRESIDENT OBAMA has put job creation on the front burner — he outlined his new plan in a speech yesterday, and at last week’s jobs forum he said he was “open to every demonstrably good idea� to put Americans back to work.

Well, here’s a proposition: Cities and towns across the country are the default owners of hundreds of thousands of abandoned and derelict single-family houses, apartment buildings and factories. These places are a blight on our communities.

The federal government should reimburse cities and towns who hire people from the unemployment rolls to tear down these structures, clean up the properties and, if there is no immediate buyer for them, to turn them into green spaces.

Not only will this create jobs, it will also provide lasting economic value as the properties get placed back on the tax rolls. And the program would give clear evidence that the taxpayers’ [[borrowed) dollars are producing a tangible public benefit. To encourage participation, Washington might consider giving cities and towns a 25 percent bonus — beyond reimbursing them for what they spend on reclamation. We could get such a program running by early next year, and it could run through, say, mid-2011.

How do we get started? The first step is to figure out how many abandoned properties are out there. Right now, we have no idea. A group like the nonprofit National League of Cities could gather information from cities and towns across the country. Once we have a new census of the derelict, we can estimate a cost, match jobs to those who do not have them and get to work.

Paul O’Neill, the former chairman of Alcoa, was the secretary of the Treasury from 2001 to 2002.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/op...l.html?_r=1&hp

[tallboy66]

Well, fixing them up to sell is great but how does tearing the structure down increase tax revenue?
And Detroits eastside has acres of green space, entire blocks, what it needs is people moving in.
Woodward has gravel lots and trees, and seeing as the city can barely maintain city streets during a snowfall or get grass cut more than once a month in spots.

I mean can you imagine driving down Broadway in NYC or Michigan ave.[[Chicago) and seeing an entire block just empty? broken glass, some trash, a shopping cart or 2.

[DetroitPlanner]

I mean can you imagine driving down Broadway in NYC or Michigan ave.[[Chicago) and seeing an entire block just empty? broken glass, some trash, a shopping cart or 2.

Interesting. It was not all that long ago that River N, a couple of blocks W of Michigan Ave in Chicago was infested with empty lots created through 'urban renewal'.

One can argue that if you live in a neighborhood full of empty burned out homes on small lots that your home is not worth much, therefore it won't generate much in the way of taxes. Now if you tear the empty homes, give the land to the remaining homeowner, suddenly the homes that are left are on larger lots allowing those existing homes to add a garage, an extra room or two, and now in an area free of blight, it would increase the taxable value. I seriously doubt anyone is paying taxes on a burned out shell of an abandoned home is paying the taxes on it.

[Detroitnerd]

Sigh. More of the same old bs that isn't working. And pussyfooting around it by saying stuff like "one could argue ..." DP, your name is perfect, because your ideas so often dovetail neatly with what passes for "planning" here.

[DetroitPlanner]

Talk about a perfect name... Nerd, that sums it up. Do you live next to a burned out home? Do you remember how River North was before it was redeveloped? What does having an empty burned out home do for the tax revenues for properties that surround it? What kind of taxes get paid on those homes? What sort of danger to they pose for neighbors? Get out of your ivory tower.

[Detroitnerd]

Talk about a perfect name... Nerd, that sums it up. Do you live next to a burned out home?

Not right next to one, but there are several on my street. Even more around the block. They'll fall down eventually, I guess.

What does having an empty burned out home do for the tax revenues for properties that surround it?

What does knocking down a home do for the city coffers? It's an expenditure. An expenditure that produces something that is not on the city tax rolls.

What kind of taxes get paid on those homes?

None. They just sit there.

What sort of danger to they pose for neighbors?

As long as they stay out of them, none.

Get out of your ivory tower.

Har-de-har-har. That's rich. My ivory tower hasn't been repainted in a long time, and it's only two stories, I'm afraid.

Seriously, I am not saying that these vacant homes are priceless architectural treasures or anything. I'm not even saying they shouldn't be flattened, eventually. I'm just questioning your apparently tortured logic: That "one could argue" that "if you tear the empty homes, give the land to the remaining homeowner, suddenly the homes that are left are on larger lots allowing those existing homes to add a garage, an extra room or two, and now in an area free of blight, it would increase the taxable value." So all we have to do is spend $20,000 each to demolish 10 houses, with a market value of $500 each, so that then the other homeowners in this depressed area will be given [[for free? from the city that paid thousands to produce them?) the lots and cover them with two-car garages, pools and all the other trappings of suburban life, so the city can then realize 1/1,000th of the money it put into the scheme?

I'm not going to get up in arms about knocking down a bunch of dilapidated 1920s bungalows, but as a plan to fill the city's coffers it's a joke.

That's the problem with being a "planner" in Detroit. When the only tool in your toolbox is a bulldozer, every problem looks like it could be solved with some bulldozing.

[DetroitPlanner]

Lets review some of the Cities main issues: Poor Schools, Abandonement, Poor Response Time for police, dangerous conditions for fire fighters, poverty are just a few..... Then of course if thats not bad enough we have the Lions.

Leaving up homes that can't be fixed will be a continous drain on the City coffers. These things will be broken into, vandalized, set on fire; causing unsafe conditions and increase the cost for police, fire protection. If the homes were instead gotten rid of and the land sold to neighbors the land would then be cared for, be on the tax rolls, and increase the value of the surrounding homes.

Detroit is not in a position right now to grow. Like it or not our whole region is shrinking. Its not like millions of people are going to move here from the suburbs to spend tens of thousands of dollars on fixing up abandoned homes. Heck most folks who live in the burbs today are barely making it and are looking to leave Metro Detrot completely. The rats are bailing, when that happens who will be around to fix up these homes? Those folks who live in the burbs now and want to continue to be in metro Detroit will not be looking to clamour to live in the City, have you read about the school system lately? Yeah thats a big draw! Worst scores ever recorded! "Lets move there hon! I've always wanted to live in a neighborhood with crappy schools and burned out homes that are tax liabilities and havens for rapists, firebugs and drug addicts!"

You have no idea what I do or who I work for yet you automatically assume that I am the guy running bulldozers down the street looking to tear down homes without regard to implications. The reality is we need to plan for fewer people, I wish that was not the case, but its true. Planning for fewer is much harder than planning for growth. Its not as rewarding either. We will be lucky if we lose only one congressional seat in metro Detroit next year, but I can see us easily losing two.

Lastly I apologize for not being the bigger man and letting your name calling get the best of me. Do you really want to live in a neighborhood full of houses that fall down around you? What your proposing is the continuation of Brightmoor.

[Detroitnerd]

Lets review some of the Cities main issues: Poor Schools, Abandonement, Poor Response Time for police, dangerous conditions for fire fighters, poverty are just a few..... Then of course if thats not bad enough we have the Lions.

Leaving up homes that can't be fixed will be a continous drain on the City coffers. These things will be broken into, vandalized, set on fire; causing unsafe conditions and increase the cost for police, fire protection. If the homes were instead gotten rid of and the land sold to neighbors the land would then be cared for, be on the tax rolls, and increase the value of the surrounding homes.

I'm not so sure that, in every case, we need to throw $20,000 into demolishing a building because the long-term costs of letting it fall apart would be more. I'm sure in many cases it's significantly less than the cost of demolishing it. And your idea that it demolishing buildings will increase revenues sounds unlikely, at best.

Detroit is not in a position right now to grow. Like it or not our whole region is shrinking. Its not like millions of people are going to move here from the suburbs to spend tens of thousands of dollars on fixing up abandoned homes. Heck most folks who live in the burbs today are barely making it and are looking to leave Metro Detrot completely. The rats are bailing, when that happens who will be around to fix up these homes? Those folks who live in the burbs now and want to continue to be in metro Detroit will not be looking to clamour to live in the City, have you read about the school system lately? Yeah thats a big draw! Worst scores ever recorded! "Lets move there hon! I've always wanted to live in a neighborhood with crappy schools and burned out homes that are tax liabilities and havens for rapists, firebugs and drug addicts!"

Irrelevant to the point under discussion, specifically that demolishing buildings at $20,000 a pop is going to fill the city's coffers. It will not.

You have no idea what I do or who I work for yet you automatically assume that I am the guy running bulldozers down the street looking to tear down homes without regard to implications.

Not true. You call yourself DetroitPlanner and I think it sums up your attitudes neatly. Generally speaking, your enthusiasm for demolition as a cure-all reminds me of so many Detroit city "planners" that it works quite well as your screen-name.

The reality is we need to plan for fewer people, I wish that was not the case, but its true. Planning for fewer is much harder than planning for growth. Its not as rewarding either. We will be lucky if we lose only one congressional seat in metro Detroit next year, but I can see us easily losing two.

You and many other demo-happy types remind me of a scalpel-happy doctor who cuts a cancer patient into bits, one profitable operation at a time. Can we try something new, please? Chemo? Something? Anything?

Lastly I apologize for not being the bigger man and letting your name calling get the best of me.

I wasn't offended. I may be a nerd, but I am a Detroit nerd: live here and work here and pay taxes here -- even get mugged here.

Do you really want to live in a neighborhood full of houses that fall down around you? What your proposing is the continuation of Brightmoor.

No, that's not what I've said. I think I was pretty clear that I don't object to knocking down some old bungalows, when it's absolutely necessary. But this argument that knocking down homes will fill city coffers is just silly. And I had to point that out.

[DetroitPlanner]

I am siding with the Tresury Secretary O'Neill, I think his plan makes a lot of sense. Who charges $20k to knock down a house? Are you using Bobby Furguson's figures?

[Stosh]

Hey.. you guys should get along, you're related arent you? Detroitnerd, Detroitplanner...

[DetroitDad]

Few precious resources we all have left.

The abandoned buildings and homes aren't really our problem, are they?

[andybsg]

I know I am about to get crucified, but this is good news.

[ghettopalmetto]

I don't get it. In my simple mind, there's a huge difference between a bombed-out house that's about to collapse at any moment, and a home that's been recently vacated due to foreclosure.

Are we advocating a one-size-fits-all approach? If so, we better line up Adamo to get rid of the Old Wayne County Building before it becomes an eyesore.

[kathy2trips]

Renovated historic buildings go for a premium all over the country; entire neighborhoods are publicized as tourist attractions and movie locations. Yet, Detroit just can't wait to shoot itself in the foot...again. Dumb, dumb.

[Retroit]

I agree with the article and DetroitPlanner. Some of you are missing the point. This is a plan to use federal stimulus money to tear down unsalvageable, non-historic houses and buildings. The apathetic solution of "They'll fall down eventually, I guess." is the dumbest thing I've ever heard for revitalizing a city.

[iheartthed]

I agree with the article and DetroitPlanner. Some of you are missing the point. This is a plan to use federal stimulus money to tear down unsalvageable, non-historic houses and buildings. The apathetic solution of "They'll fall down eventually, I guess." is the dumbest thing I've ever heard for revitalizing a city.

It's only second dumbest to thinking that tearing down houses will revitalize a city.

[tallboy66]

Interesting. It was not all that long ago that River N, a couple of blocks W of Michigan Ave in Chicago was infested with empty lots created through 'urban renewal'.

I forgot about that strange area on the Lincoln Park/Old Town border and the remaining building on Halsted looks entirely out of place next to condos and valet parking clubs.

I doubt Detroit would be able to be that upscale on the same level as Chicago or NYC but affordable, modest homes back into neighborhoods would be nice to see, more of the homes that were built near the old Chrysler plant along Jefferson?

I still would say first focus on downtown/midtown, Woodward to 94ish between the lodge and I-75 and along Jefferson from the bridge to Belle Isle then the in fill would happen more naturally with a populated downtown.
How about being able to take a huge pic of all the high rises that would be built along the river from downtown, then Detroit being able to boast that it's skyline is 4 miles long? [[Riverfront towers to Belle Isle approximately.)

And to repeat myself put an expanded people mover from the bridge to Belle Isle and up to The new center.

[Retroit]

It's only second dumbest to thinking that tearing down houses will revitalize a city.

It is not that tearing down dilapidated houses will revitalize the city; it's that a city can not begin to be revitalized until it tears down its dilapidated houses.

[ghettopalmetto]

It is not that tearing down dilapidated houses will revitalize the city; it's that a city can not begin to be revitalized until it tears down its dilapidated houses.

Just like Chicago, DC, Boston, and Philadelphia [[among others) tore down all of their "dilapidated" housing stock, right?

[MikeM]

Right. They all left places like this standing: http://www.themotorlesscity.com/wp-c...1200602_03.jpg

[MichMatters]

Some of you are ridiculous. The issue here is about largely tearing down dime-a-dozen, bombed-out, suburban subdivision-esque bungalows and virtual cracker boxes. Some of you act as if we're using stimulus money to level the rest of brick-ladden Brush Park. Please, it's time to get real.

[ghettopalmetto]

Some of you are ridiculous. The issue here is about largely tearing down dime-a-dozen, bombed-out, suburban subdivision-esque bungalows and virtual cracker boxes. Some of you act as if we're using stimulus money to level the rest of brick-ladden Brush Park. Please, it's time to get real.

Where has the City of Detroit defined "dilapidated"? Are there investigations and appropriate documentation being conducted prior to demolition?

Please refer to Mr. O'Neill's words, which are "abandoned and derelict". This does not necessarily imply "bombed-out, suburban subdivision-esque".

What is the criteria the City of Detroit uses in deciding to demolish a vacant home?

[iheartthed]

It is not that tearing down dilapidated houses will revitalize the city; it's that a city can not begin to be revitalized until it tears down its dilapidated houses.

I don't get your line of thought. Do you think weed filled lots will be more attractive for revitalization than neighborhoods with standing houses?

[Retroit]

ghettopalmetto, if you are arguing that a home that is abandoned, but in otherwise good condition, should not be torn down, I agree with you. But would you also agree that many homes in Detroit are well beyond the point of salvage and have no architectural or historic value?

Iheartthed, yes, I think a weed filled lot is more attractive than a lot with an unsalvageable house on it. And I think that a well maintained lot is better than a weed filled lot. And I think a well maintained vacant house is better than a non-maintained vacant house.

[ghettopalmetto]

ghettopalmetto, if you are arguing that a home that is abandoned, but in otherwise good condition, should not be torn down, I agree with you. But would you also agree that many homes in Detroit are well beyond the point of salvage and have no architectural or historic value?

Iheartthed, yes, I think a weed filled lot is more attractive than a lot with an unsalvageable house on it. And I think that a well maintained lot is better than a weed filled lot. And I think a well maintained vacant house is better than a non-maintained vacant house.

Yes, I agree with you Retroit. If Detroit is ever going to rebound, it needs to have available a supply of existing housing stock that can be purchased cheaply and renovated, such as happened in Philadelphia and Richmond, Virginia.

The term used on the engineering and legal side of things is "imminent collapse". If a structure is in danger of imminent collapse, it should be torn down as a public safety measure. But I don't believe it makes any sense to spend good money to demolish a house just because it's vacant. If you look at cities that have rebounded, it's because people have moved in and fixed up the existing homes--not by building claptrap suburban houses on urban parcels.

If it does not currently, the City of Detroit needs to move to the "imminent collapse" standard before it demolishes. A demolition produces an empty lot. An empty lot starts to grow weeds, blighting the neighborhoods. Housing values decline. People move out, vacating more housing stock. Those houses are demolished, and so on. If the City of Detroit bulldozes homes just for being vacant, it will bulldoze itself into an expensive downward spiral from which it will never recover.