Detroit won't force residents to move in city's reshaping From The Detroit News: htt

[Melocoton]

The residential areas need to be consolidated and the rest turned into green fields that the cops can patrol with helicopter gunships.

Jeez, that sounds like General Westmoreland circa 1967. I ain't living in no strategic hamlet.

[wolverine]

I think people blow the whole rightsizing plan way out of proportion. They have this belief the government will come knocking and level their home. That isn't necessarily true. By "necessarily" I mean there's a 99.99% chance it will not happen to you.

I think the plan is this

1. When a resident's occupation of their dwelling expires [[they either die or move out) their home is purchased by the city at market value if it's in a designated zone for right sizing. At that point it is salvaged in some form or demolished.

2. A formula is determined for homes literally located in the middle of nothing. If you live in a home that is not within 800 feet of another dwelling let's say, your property could be a candidate for government taking.

3. City institutes a ban on new construction in designated zones for rightsizing. Why? Because developers often go cheap and and squeeze two homes on 3 traditional Detroit lots. This land was abandoned for a reason. Basically the cheaper developers can build them, the better. By limiting new construction in dead zones, it can be shifted to areas that are still well populated. New construction in populated areas will revitalize neighborhoods that are already abundant in services.

4. The plan is extended over many years. MANY YEARS. We aren't going to wake up tomorrow to seeing homes get demolished. In fact demolishing a home takes a lot of time, money, and cutting through tons of red tape. That's why the city can't keep up. While my 2nd bulleted point may not apply to many areas, I bet it will in a few years.

5. This is a huge public interest. Detroit residents are paying more for roads and city services than they should. Resources can now be diverted to the most populous areas and more effectively stabilize neighborhoods that have the best chance of surviving.

[kraig]

I think people blow the whole rightsizing plan way out of proportion. They have this belief the government will come knocking and level their home. That isn't necessarily true. By "necessarily" I mean there's a 99.99% chance it will not happen to you.

I think the plan is this

1. When a resident's occupation of their dwelling expires [[they either die or move out) their home is purchased by the city at market value if it's in a designated zone for right sizing. At that point it is salvaged in some form or demolished.

2. A formula is determined for homes literally located in the middle of nothing. If you live in a home that is not within 800 feet of another dwelling let's say, your property could be a candidate for government taking.

3. City institutes a ban on new construction in designated zones for rightsizing. Why? Because developers often go cheap and and squeeze two homes on 3 traditional Detroit lots. This land was abandoned for a reason. Basically the cheaper developers can build them, the better. By limiting new construction in dead zones, it can be shifted to areas that are still well populated. New construction in populated areas will revitalize neighborhoods that are already abundant in services.

4. The plan is extended over many years. MANY YEARS. We aren't going to wake up tomorrow to seeing homes get demolished. In fact demolishing a home takes a lot of time, money, and cutting through tons of red tape. That's why the city can't keep up. While my 2nd bulleted point may not apply to many areas, I bet it will in a few years.

5. This is a huge public interest. Detroit residents are paying more for roads and city services than they should. Resources can now be diverted to the most populous areas and more effectively stabilize neighborhoods that have the best chance of surviving.

What about businesses that are thriving in low density areas?

[DetroitPole]

I think people blow the whole rightsizing plan way out of proportion. They have this belief the government will come knocking and level their home. That isn't necessarily true. By "necessarily" I mean there's a 99.99% chance it will not happen to you.

I think the plan is this

1. When a resident's occupation of their dwelling expires [[they either die or move out) their home is purchased by the city at market value if it's in a designated zone for right sizing. At that point it is salvaged in some form or demolished.

2. A formula is determined for homes literally located in the middle of nothing. If you live in a home that is not within 800 feet of another dwelling let's say, your property could be a candidate for government taking.

3. City institutes a ban on new construction in designated zones for rightsizing. Why? Because developers often go cheap and and squeeze two homes on 3 traditional Detroit lots. This land was abandoned for a reason. Basically the cheaper developers can build them, the better. By limiting new construction in dead zones, it can be shifted to areas that are still well populated. New construction in populated areas will revitalize neighborhoods that are already abundant in services.

4. The plan is extended over many years. MANY YEARS. We aren't going to wake up tomorrow to seeing homes get demolished. In fact demolishing a home takes a lot of time, money, and cutting through tons of red tape. That's why the city can't keep up. While my 2nd bulleted point may not apply to many areas, I bet it will in a few years.

5. This is a huge public interest. Detroit residents are paying more for roads and city services than they should. Resources can now be diverted to the most populous areas and more effectively stabilize neighborhoods that have the best chance of surviving.

1. Sorry, when I expire, the city isn't getting my dwelling. Besides, they legally could not. If I died without a will - which I have - it would go into probate and to the state if no one could prove it was intended to be theirs. Particularly in Detroit, especially among poor people, people have lived in houses for generations - they're going to keep doing that. I don't know how the CoD is going to suddenly usurp inheritance rights after, oh, say 1000 years or so of them, give or take.

2. I give you credit for trying to define "nothing". However, 800 feet? I'm sure there are McMansions in the suburbs that are more than 800 feet apart. What about places next to parkland? What about two houses adjacent to each other surrounded by vacant land?

http://www.freep.com/article/2010081...bzxQ/gwDdGw%3D

I think what is lost on a lot of people, seeing the astounding amount of vacant land and structures, is that Detroit is still incredibly dense. There are really only a few examples of true urban prairie in the city. The Freep did an article on this a few years ago. The vast, vast majority of the city is a hodgepodge of occupied and unoccupied structures, vacant land and used land. There is very little contiguous empty space, relatively speaking, in relation to the size of the city. The western part of Briggs and Poletown come to mind. What I'm saying is they're going to pretty hard pressed to consolidate much of anything if they don't want to screw around with a bunch of people and occupied structures.

3. I don't really know of any places that are "abundant in services" in Detroit or I would move there, but the most populated places in Detroit have no room for new construction. Rehabs, sure, demolition and new construction, yes, but, taking EEV for example, there is no vacant land.

4. History has shown us otherwise.

I'm not trying to personally attack you, but rather the whole plan. It would certainly be nice to consolidate the city in some way, but it seems there are two options: Either break a lot of eggs in the process and screw over tens of thousands of people, or do something on such a small scale that it is insignificant.

Furthermore, WHY are we trusting the CoD to do something of this magnitude? They can't do ANYTHING right.

What disturbs me that in this country where property rights are the holiest of holies, people are ready to throw them out the window when it comes to Detroit.

In terms of rightsizing, why don't we build a green belt around the suburbs? Prohibit new construction. Our regional population hasn't grown in 30 years yet we have sprawled beyond our means exponentially. The Canadians already do it. It isn't crazy or untested and violates no one's private property.

Oh yeah, because the suburbs have all the money and power. I forgot.

[wolverine]

1. Sorry, when I expire, the city isn't getting my dwelling. Besides, they legally could not. If I died without a will - which I have - it would go into probate and to the state if no one could prove it was intended to be theirs. Particularly in Detroit, especially among poor people, people have lived in houses for generations - they're going to keep doing that. I don't know how the CoD is going to suddenly usurp inheritance rights after, oh, say 1000 years or so of them, give or take.

Detroit city / Wayne County land bank = State of Michigan land bank. Also why are you assuming houses will stay in the hands of families for generations? That's not what I'm seeing. I'm seeing large scale abandonment in areas. If what you said was true, Detroit would still be as populated as it was in the 50's.

2. I give you credit for trying to define "nothing". However, 800 feet? I'm sure there are McMansions in the suburbs that are more than 800 feet apart. What about places next to parkland? What about two houses adjacent to each other surrounded by vacant land?

No McMansions are not 800 feet apart. 60 feet at most. Please.... 800 feet is two city blocks here in downtown Chicago. Besides, that number is completely unscientific. I made it up which is why I said "let's say" Debating such a detail is silly.

http://www.freep.com/article/2010081...bzxQ/gwDdGw%3D

I think what is lost on a lot of people, seeing the astounding amount of vacant land and structures, is that Detroit is still incredibly dense. There are really only a few examples of true urban prairie in the city. The Freep did an article on this a few years ago. The vast, vast majority of the city is a hodgepodge of occupied and unoccupied structures, vacant land and used land. There is very little contiguous empty space, relatively speaking, in relation to the size of the city. The western part of Briggs and Poletown come to mind. What I'm saying is they're going to pretty hard pressed to consolidate much of anything if they don't want to screw around with a bunch of people and occupied structures.

You say there are really only a few examples of true urban prairie in the city.. I've explained this point already. Contiguous vacant swaths of land are developing over the next few years. Maybe you won't find 5 empty blocks in a row, but unless you expect some immediate boom right now in Detroit's housing future, these blocks will continue to empty of people. DetroitPole, the city is losing population, and there will be more vacant structures.

3. I don't really know of any places that are "abundant in services" in Detroit or I would move there, but the most populated places in Detroit have no room for new construction. Rehabs, sure, demolition and new construction, yes, but, taking EEV for example, there is no vacant land.

There is always room, that argument doesn't make sense. Just because buildings occupy lots in a city doesn't mean there is room to grow. Cities don't hit terminal populations.

4. History has shown us otherwise.

I'm not trying to personally attack you, but rather the whole plan. It would certainly be nice to consolidate the city in some way, but it seems there are two options: Either break a lot of eggs in the process and screw over tens of thousands of people, or do something on such a small scale that it is insignificant.

Furthermore, WHY are we trusting the CoD to do something of this magnitude? They can't do ANYTHING right.

What disturbs me that in this country where property rights are the holiest of holies, people are ready to throw them out the window when it comes to Detroit.

In terms of rightsizing, why don't we build a green belt around the suburbs? Prohibit new construction. Our regional population hasn't grown in 30 years yet we have sprawled beyond our means exponentially. The Canadians already do it. It isn't crazy or untested and violates no one's private property.

Oh yeah, because the suburbs have all the money and power. I forgot.

Who is being screwed? No one is being forced to do anything. As I mentioned, relocating people isn't the central component of this plan. It's preventing growth in areas that do not need it. I suppose if you were a developer looking for dirt cheap land in the middle of the prairie, then yes you have problems.

The authority of this plan does not have to rest on the city of Detroit, another public authority can handle it. That's why landbanks were established.

[mwilbert]

I don't completely agree with Wolverine, but I mostly do and I disagree with these points:

1. Sorry, when I expire, the city isn't getting my dwelling. Besides, they legally could not. If I died without a will - which I have - it would go into probate and to the state if no one could prove it was intended to be theirs. Particularly in Detroit, especially among poor people, people have lived in houses for generations - they're going to keep doing that. I don't know how the CoD is going to suddenly usurp inheritance rights after, oh, say 1000 years or so of them, give or take.

This is misunderstanding the point. The property would be taken at death, compensation would be paid to the estate. Stuff like this happens all the time; in particular with properties lying inside national or state parks. They let the people live there, but when they die the property is taken.

2. I give you credit for trying to define "nothing". However, 800 feet? I'm sure there are McMansions in the suburbs that are more than 800 feet apart. What about places next to parkland? What about two houses adjacent to each other surrounded by vacant land?

I would use a neighborhood standard rather than a distance standard, but just because 800' feet might be reasonable in a non-urban area doesn't make it inappropriate in a city.

3. I don't really know of any places that are "abundant in services" in Detroit or I would move there, but the most populated places in Detroit have no room for new construction. Rehabs, sure, demolition and new construction, yes, but, taking EEV for example, there is no vacant land.

Here you are just not seeing all the available space. First, there is lots of vacant/underutilized land on arterials even in the best neighborhoods of the city. These would be very appropriate places to put multi-family housing, both increasing density and decreasing blight. Second, many good neighborhoods have fringe areas that have are less good and have vacant/underutilized space. Third, lots of areas of the city have the potential for accessory apartments. Fourth, there are lots of parcels that are vacant that are in areas that would be desirable to populate because they are located where service delivery would be easy--for instance a zone running few blocks east of Woodward.


I agree that there is every reason to be skeptical of the city's ability to do this in a well thought-out and effective way. But I'm skeptical of its ability to function now...