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

**EASTSIDE CAT 67-83** · August-17-10, 02:22 PM

A quote from Bing in the article linked below, "This plan really sets the stage for the next 20, 30 [[or) 40 years,"....... This is probably the most accurate statement I have heard about the actual prospects of rebirth in the city, it will really have to follow the natural path of evolution which as stated will take a generation or more.

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20100817/...#ixzz0wtOYLUxK

**Detroitnerd** · August-17-10, 02:24 PM

So why do I think this statement essentially confirms that the city will force many people to move?

**EASTSIDE CAT 67-83** · August-17-10, 02:33 PM

I guess my point is....there is no pie in the sky plan to fix the problem in less than 40 years by throwing tax dollars at pipe dreams. Get the city services fixed and maybe someone will want to stay or move in.

**Hypestyles** · August-17-10, 02:47 PM

hopefully eminent domain is still on the table for commercial properties that have been long abandoned and unkempt..

**Hermod** · August-17-10, 02:59 PM

I still think that you go eminent domain and target the areas already pretty much abandoned. You got to areas which are still good, buy up vacant homes, fix them up, and offer them to the folks in the targeted areas on a one-for-one basis. Agree on getting rid of the abandoned commercial buildings.

**Johnlodge** · August-17-10, 03:49 PM

The plan to reshape the city could include relocating residents and mothballing neighborhoods.

Mothballing? If you don't tear that schitt down, the entire plan is pointless. You think the crack heads and squatters are going to stay out of the "mothballed" parts of town? Police and fire will be just as stretched if not more so as now. If people are being moved out of the more abandoned areas, the structures need to come down. Farm on it, whatever, but don't leave a lawless ghost town.

**maxx** · August-17-10, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

So why do I think this statement essentially confirms that the city will force many people to move?

You can live in your house in the middle of a vacant block. You just won't have sewer service or trash pickup.lol
I lived in Detroit for around two years in the early '80s and had to replace the sewer line. I don't know how my neighbors fared.

**DetroitHabitater** · August-17-10, 04:43 PM

It's gotta hurt before it gets better.

Gotta start now.

**Hermod** · August-17-10, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by Johnlodge

Mothballing? If you don't tear that schitt down, the entire plan is pointless. You think the crack heads and squatters are going to stay out of the "mothballed" parts of town? Police and fire will be just as stretched if not more so as now. If people are being moved out of the more abandoned areas, the structures need to come down. Farm on it, whatever, but don't leave a lawless ghost town.

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

**Melocoton** · August-17-10, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by Hermod

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** · August-17-10, 06:34 PM

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.

**fryar** · August-17-10, 07:47 PM

I also think your 2nd bulleted point may happen, although hopefully it will be done in a way that is respectful of the occupant. I wouldn't be surprised if the present administration hashes out this plan that it says is geared for 30 years or something, and then the next one *greatly* accelerates it. I feel bad for the people who may feel as though they end up being kicked around, but I also feel bad for them for living in the urban prairie in a house that, shall we say, the market places a very low value on.

**kraig** · August-17-10, 08:25 PM

The concept should be service delivery, not all of this shrinking nonsense. Relocating people won't change the fact that the City is using Crown Vics as ambulances. Besides, what area could the City move people out of? It won't be the borders. Palmer Woods, Sherwood Forest, the Southwest side, Green Acres or English Village etc. The borders tend to be some of the nicer areas of the City. Moving people from the middle to the border areas would do nothing but create a big hole in the middle of the City which wouldn't help.

Later for all of that high concept stuff. If the City leaders ever really get interested in getting things done, all they have to do is talk to the rank and file employees and actually listen to them for a change.

**kraig** · August-17-10, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

What about businesses that are thriving in low density areas?

**mwilbert** · August-17-10, 08:37 PM

I think Wolverine is pretty close to what will/should happen, assuming anything does. You don't allow building in the areas that are being emptied out; you encourage building in areas where you are trying to increase density; and you both provide incentives for people to move from the former to the latter and wait for them to move or die for other reasons. I'd like to see assistance to help groups of people move to new areas so that they can maintain some of their existing neighborhood relationships.

I suspect that trying to take people's houses would be more trouble than it is worth. I also don't see anything wrong with pointing out that people out on the prairie aren't going to get the same services as everyone else--that is just a simple description of reality. My biggest concern about the whole thing is that presumably it will be organized by the City of Detroit government, which isn't noted for effective planning or administration.

DetroitDad · August-17-10, 08:40 PM

There are two issues here; the first is that we are still trying to implement untested across the board plans, and then seeking views from citizens and other people who are not experts.

The second issue is that he/we still are not looking past the problem.

**wolverine** · August-17-10, 08:44 PM

What you mentioned Kraig is definitely part of it. I could say plenty of issues that need to be resolved, but they are only part of it.

A few years ago when I would bike around Detroit, I was surprised to see long stretches of city streets repaved with no houses. New sidewalks corners were installed along with repaired street lights. Why was this done, who authorized this? Who will drive on that street, and who are those lights providing security to? Why would they provide maintenance to this street, and what's the point draining water from it? It obviously cost someone money to build it. My suggestion would have been to close the street. Require residents to drive a few blocks down to use another street. It won't hurt them a bit.

As far as where would this occur, it would not be the borders. Why would you suggest this? People live in those areas. You realize this is about areas where people are scattered sparsely.

Originally Posted by kraig

Relocating people......

No, this is where I simply ignore the rest of your post. It's not about relocating. It's about preventing people from building new or moving into houses in the middle of nowhere. Facilitating decline is key here. It's a given Detroit will right-size itself.....but in such a fashion that will cause a much larger financial burden if there isn't some sort of planning and regulation. If you have just purchased a house in the middle of the urban prairie, chances are you'll probably be there for a very long time, but the sparse areas around you will continue to fail as they have been.

As for businesses, it's pretty hard to stay in business when you have no people to serve. It's not difficult to find a contiguous blocks of vacant storefronts that haven't seen activity in years. Purchase these buildings and demolish them. I'm sure there are many building owners willing to sell as evidenced by "FOR LEASE OR FOR SALE"

**wolverine** · August-17-10, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitDad

There are two issues here; the first is that we are still trying to implement untested across the board plans, and then seeking views from citizens and other people who are not experts.

The second issue is that he/we still are not looking past the problem.

Alright, floor is open. I'd like to hear what you have to say

DetroitDad · August-17-10, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by wolverine

What you mentioned Kraig is definitely part of it. I could say plenty of issues that need to be resolved, but they are only part of it.

A few years ago when I would bike around Detroit, I was surprised to see long stretches of city streets repaved with no houses. New sidewalks corners were installed along with repaired street lights. Why was this done, who authorized this? Who will drive on that street, and who are those lights providing security to? Why would they provide maintenance to this street, and what's the point draining water from it? It obviously cost someone money to build it. My suggestion would have been to close the street. Require residents to drive a few blocks down to use another street. It won't hurt them a bit.

As far as where would this occur, it would not be the borders. Why would you suggest this? People live in those areas. You realize this is about areas where people are scattered sparsely.

No, this is where I simply ignore the rest of your post. It's not about relocating. It's about preventing people from building new or moving into houses in the middle of nowhere. Facilitating decline is key here. It's a given Detroit will right-size itself.....but in such a fashion that will cause a much larger financial burden if there isn't some sort of planning and regulation. If you have just purchased a house in the middle of the urban prairie, chances are you'll probably be there for a very long time, but the sparse areas around you will continue to fail as they have been.

As for businesses, it's pretty hard to stay in business when you have no people to serve. It's not difficult to find a contiguous blocks of vacant storefronts that haven't seen activity in years. Purchase these buildings and demolish them. I'm sure there are many building owners willing to sell as evidenced by "FOR LEASE OR FOR SALE"

Wolverine, you are much closer to the real issues here, but you know as well as anyone that this is not going to save Detroit.

**English** · August-17-10, 08:58 PM

Perhaps part of the problem is that no one has managed a project quite like this before? Even if other cities have downsized and consolidated, the sheer scale of what needs to happen in the D is daunting.

**wolverine** · August-17-10, 09:00 PM

You are correct DD, it absolutely won't save Detroit on it's own. There are many other issues that require more attention and urgent action. However, I do believe this program will assist the city in becoming more manageable. Certainly you must have the right people doing the managing, but if they can argue and make poor decisions over less, I see that as a good thing.

**mwilbert** · August-17-10, 09:11 PM

Moving people from the middle to the border areas would do nothing but create a big hole in the middle of the City which wouldn't help.

Why wouldn't it help? You don't provide police or fire services to the border areas from downtown--empty areas in the middle aren't really a problem. Encouraging people to move from the dead areas into viable ones would help the viable ones even if there weren't any benefit to the city otherwise. It would help the people who moved by putting them somewhere with more resources. And there isn't any reason you couldn't encourage movement into areas that aren't good now but make the city more coherent, like adding population to the currently less-desirable areas close to the Woodward corridor.

What about businesses that are thriving in low density areas?

That is a good question and I don't have a good answer; I also don't have a good notion of the magnitude of the problem--are there a lot of these, and how hard would they be to move? The places I mentally think of when I am looking at areas I would target for emptying don't seem to have a lot of businesses of any kind that are visible to me, but I'm willing to believe they exist.

**fryar** · August-17-10, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by kraig

The concept should be service delivery, not all of this shrinking nonsense. Relocating people won't change the fact that the City is using Crown Vics as ambulances. Besides, what area could the City move people out of? It won't be the borders. Palmer Woods, Sherwood Forest, the Southwest side, Green Acres or English Village etc. The borders tend to be some of the nicer areas of the City. Moving people from the middle to the border areas would do nothing but create a big hole in the middle of the City which wouldn't help.

Later for all of that high concept stuff. If the City leaders ever really get interested in getting things done, all they have to do is talk to the rank and file employees and actually listen to them for a change.

The shrinking nonsense is directly related to the service delivery question. It doesn't help provide services, with any budget, if they have to traverse miles and miles, in the aggregate, of emptiness. For example, those repaved sidewalks with wheelchair friendly grading being put in on deserted blocks. You fight this by concentrating everyone in areas considered viable, by whatever yard stick, and concentrating the emptiness in one big hole or a few big holes, that you then figure out a use for, like farming or industry or something. It's no silver bullet, but it makes sense.

I gather you're a city employee, of the rank and file kind, and you guys don't get a lot of input, then? Yes, that probably doesn't help things one bit, either.

**kraig** · August-17-10, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

Why wouldn't it help? You don't provide police or fire services to the border areas from downtown--empty areas in the middle aren't really a problem. Encouraging people to move from the dead areas into viable ones would help the viable ones even if there weren't any benefit to the city otherwise. It would help the people who moved by putting them somewhere with more resources. And there isn't any reason you couldn't encourage movement into areas that aren't good now but make the city more coherent, like adding population to the currently less-desirable areas close to the Woodward corridor.

That is a good question and I don't have a good answer; I also don't have a good notion of the magnitude of the problem--are there a lot of these, and how hard would they be to move? The places I mentally think of when I am looking at areas I would target for emptying don't seem to have a lot of businesses of any kind that are visible to me, but I'm willing to believe they exist.

Uh, you do realize that Woodward is considered the middle of Detroit? You're also setting yourself up for the same thing that DPS did and that's pushing rival gangs into the same area. Remember, when you consolidate you consolidate all. Especially the crime because it's never a part of the plan.

**kraig** · August-17-10, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by fryar

The shrinking nonsense is directly related to the service delivery question. It doesn't help provide services, with any budget, if they have to traverse miles and miles, in the aggregate, of emptiness. For example, those repaved sidewalks with wheelchair friendly grading being put in on deserted blocks. You fight this by concentrating everyone in areas considered viable, by whatever yard stick, and concentrating the emptiness in one big hole or a few big holes, that you then figure out a use for, like farming or industry or something. It's no silver bullet, but it makes sense.

I gather you're a city employee, of the rank and file kind, and you guys don't get a lot of input, then? Yes, that probably doesn't help things one bit, either.

What happens now in desolate areas? Crime. If you create more desolate areas, what are you going to creat more of? Crime. And if the plan is to not expend City resources, in this case, police, what's going to thrive in those areas like never before? Crime.

I've never been a City employee. But, I've worked with enough rank and file people in other sectors to know that there is absolutely no substitute for experience. Hell, there are a lot of DetroitYes'rs that are rank and file that come up with better ideas than what I hear coming from the Mayor or City Council.