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

[fryar]

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.

Ah. I'm sure that you're right.

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 don't see it that way. How is this supposed to work, you're going to drive there in order to get mugged? I don't see where the victims come from. Besides, if you're operating a profitable business there, like a farm or a really cool paintball park [[sorry, just came to mind, but not my cup of tea), there'd be security. By not wasting police resources on all that empty space, it can focus on places where people actually live. Or to flip that equation around a little bit, the people who are currently living in these desolate stretches and currently don't get the same police protection someone in downtown gets can enjoy that same, erm, high level of police protection. Those sole-houses-on-the-block are going to continue to see things go downhill so let's call a spade a spade and cut our losses.

[kraig]

Ah. I'm sure that you're right.


I don't see it that way. How is this supposed to work, you're going to drive there in order to get mugged? I don't see where the victims come from. Besides, if you're operating a profitable business there, like a farm or a really cool paintball park [[sorry, just came to mind, but not my cup of tea), there'd be security. By not wasting police resources on all that empty space, it can focus on places where people actually live. Or to flip that equation around a little bit, the people who are currently living in these desolate stretches and currently don't get the same police protection someone in downtown gets can enjoy that same, erm, high level of police protection. Those sole-houses-on-the-block are going to continue to see things go downhill so let's call a spade a spade and cut our losses.

Are you paying attention to your posts? "Who's going to drive there in order to get mugged?" "If you're operating a profitable business there." First off, the chances of running a legal business that lacks city services are slim. Urban farms need water. Secondly, if you're operating a profitable business and the crooks know that the police won't come to investigate, that's your ass. Thirdly, no matter where people are living, the City has a responsibility to everything that goes on within its 139 square miles. The focus should be on dealing with those responsibilities not finding a way not to deal with them. If Detroit is focusing on becoming a municipal deadbeat dad it doesn't need planners, it needs ADAM.

[fryar]

Isn't Detroit already a deadbeat dad? To deal with that reality intelligently does not mean one is pursuing it as a goal. If it's going to be unavoidable that Detroit does not have more ambulances, it makes sense to look at spacing people such that the ambulances that are available are put to the best use.
Of course you're right that the farm or whatever is still in the city of Detroit and still needs some city services. But there won't be 28 stop signs between a squad car and a holdout who was burglarized earlier and who needs to file a police report, procedurally speaking. All those stop signs add up, too, even if we can't just wholesale scrap the water mains and power lines.

[mwilbert]

Uh, you do realize that Woodward is considered the middle of Detroit?

Yes. In fact, that is kind of the point. You do realize that there are areas within a block or three of Woodward, particularly to the east, where the neighborhoods are basically dead. I'm suggesting that one might encourage people to move into those areas not because they are viable now, but because they are strategically located [[to the Woodward corridor, the middle of Detroit) and relatively easy to provide services to, and might be worth extra effort to improve.

Thirdly, no matter where people are living, the City has a responsibility to everything that goes on within its 139 square miles. The focus should be on dealing with those responsibilities not finding a way not to deal with them. If Detroit is focusing on becoming a municipal deadbeat dad it doesn't need planners, it needs ADAM.

If you have over-committed yourself, the solution probably isn't to try meeting all those commitments and doing a lousy job on all of them; more likely it is to give some of them up so you can do a better job on the rest, and perhaps figure out some other way to make it up to the people you didn't perform for. The city is nowhere near being able to do all the stuff a city is supposed to be able to do. It runs some of the worst [[if not the worst) schools in the US. It runs a police department that is by normal standards incompetent and corrupt. It doesn't seem to be able to enforce building codes or tear down dangerous buildings in a timely fashion. It doesn't keep the streets clean, or plow sidestreets, or even keep them paved properly. It doesn't seem to be able to run buses on a schedule. So the idea that somehow trying to do a better job in parts of the city and evacuating and mostly ignoring other parts is less responsible than what it does now is not convincing to me.

[royce]

This is what the city should do: target and area to be mothballed, give the residents some money to relocate to more dense areas of the city, like near the arterial streets. For those residents who refuse to leave the mothballed areas, the city tells them that they can stay but after one year all city services will be cut off [[they won't have to pay property taxes) and streets will be barracaded to discourage car traffic. This is as fair a process as possible. Waiting for people to die off is not a good plan because with many families, a younger family member will just move into the house.

[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...

[fryar]

As one who generally favors the idea of "right-sizing" or "shrinking" the city, I think DetroitPole raises some issues that I see as really legitimate concerns, ones that I would like to see addressed. I don't think anyone is advocating forcibly removing people from their homes, or otherwise weakening property rights. This kind of thing would have to be done with appropriate incentives, and no, I don't know where the money comes from.

That said, if Detroit has 40% of it's 1950's population - or whatever the percentage is, but that feels right, ballpark-wise - and its tax base has shrunk much further - which it did, since we talk of urban flight, not gentrification - what's the plan for providing city services? Forget about today's 300 million dollar budget shortfall, what if you start from scratch. The tax base has to have shrunk to what, 30%? 20%? Even with a massive, instant infusion of cash, the city would be looking at a simple repeat of the current situation some years down the road. 10,000 yuppies or hipsters or whatever can anchor a pocket or two of the city, financially, and some other pockets pull their own weight as well, of course, but it is surely challenging to find ways to stretch the funds so that respectable services are provided to the less well-endowed neighborhoods. This is certainly exacerbated by people living remotely.

Which doesn't make it right or excellent, but what are you going to do?

Just because your boat is filling with water doesn't mean you can just go ahead and whip somebody into using a bucket to bail it out. But at the same time, your empathy would be misplaced if you held up progress to discuss whether the gentleman in question is due a nap, all things considered. downtown and midtown will be ok, assuming the M1 gets built, and will enjoy improved city services, which are already above-average, from what I understand. As the deserted areas continue to empty out, the people who live in isolated areas of the city will only suffer ever greater indignities at the hands of the city. Those, at least, are my two cents, the ugly truth of the matter. In which case they would be better off living in a denser pocket of the city.

Again, I don't approve of the government showing up in a tank and booting people out of their house. That'd send even me scattering to Royal Oak [[for a gun, get it?). But incentives, the soft sell, you know?

[malmarson]

Mmm...I live in Poletown. I also know about the urban prairie, emminent domain [[Immaculete Conception Church, anyone?) and watching things shrink.

Can I stay put and help stabilize the area I'm in? Can I stay & help an urban farm?

[DetroitDad]

Mmm...I live in Poletown. I also know about the urban prairie, emminent domain [[Immaculete Conception Church, anyone?) and watching things shrink.

Can I stay put and help stabilize the area I'm in? Can I stay & help an urban farm?

Yes, but you would probably be treated like a rural resident [[slow responses, poor city services, etc.).

[DetroitDad]

If the city offered to move your homes or build you a new home, your neighborhood and connections wouldn't want to move to a location that has transit [[eliminate multiple transfers. hours spent), a grocery store, new parks, less crime, etc.

[malmarson]

I'm not in a rural section of Poletown-I live across the street from Chene Trombley, so you know I'm also a block from I-94. Hamtramck's just a mile away from where I live, so getting to most things is fast. So, in a nutshell, I'm not in a bad place or a tremendously deserted area, though, I'm close.

Hey, my family helped stabilize a block, though just a block. Isn't that what Bing wants-viability near other resources?

[kraig]

DetroitPole's question puts everything into perspective. "Why are we trusting the CoD to do something of this magnitude?" They're using Crown Vics in place of Ambulances. And some of you are thinking they'll get rightsizing correct? Please, wake the f*ck up.

[wolverine]

This would not be the city of Detroit's responsibility. I've already stated that.

[royce]

The question for you, Malmarson, and others in your area is, "Will you being willing to leave your home if the city offered you incentives to move some place else?" I've passed your block many times on the way to my old neighbor to see my mom. Your block may have 40% occupied homes, but go west and if it wasn't for that church, there would be an entire two block section with no homes. If you take into account one square mile from say I-94 to the north, Mt. Elliot to the east, Warren to the south, and St. Aubin to the west, that area may have 30% occupancy, maybe. From what I've just described, your area, Malmarson, would be one of those targeted areas to be mothballed and its residents relocated. I know no one wants to leave a home that they've been in for decades, but the move might improve city services for not only you but for all residents in Detroit. The money saved on not having to cut grass on thousands of vacant lots could be enormous. The issue here is the same as the medical issue presented to a patient with cancer. Remove the foot, eye, or prostate and have reduced functions or let the cancer spread until it kills the patient. Not reducing Detroit's foot print from a residential and commercial point of view, will continue Detroit's slow decline. Nothing else, in my opinion, can improve the abandonment in the neighborhoods, especially on the eastside.

BTW, the Chene-Trombley Market is on your block. They had to be relocated when they built the Poletown plant. See if the owner is the same owner and ask him how he was compensated for the move. Would he be inclined to relocate again?

[Zacha341]

Compelling points indeed. And still what about the abandoned areas? How will the be addressed? Fenced off ala some Berlin wall with razor wire like some Maginot line? What will be going on these quartered off areas... Ughh...? I'm being admittedly silly here but what if your cat wonders off into the "zone"...

[fryar]

The suburbs you take the interstate to, I'd imagine.

I'm also curious to see what the plan is in terms of putting up a fence or whatnot.

[royce]

"Compelling point indeed. And still what about the abandoned areas? How will the be addressed? Fenced off ala some Berlin wall with razor wire or will it be some . What will be going on these quartered off areas... Ughh...? I'm being admittedly silly here but what if your cat wonders off into the "zone"..." Zacha341

Those of you that seem to have a problem visualizing a mothballed area, need only look at a Google map of the area at Miller and St. Cyril. There was a planned industrial park that was going to be built in that area, but it never happened. All of the housing, including a school, were vacated. How it was done, I don't know. However, the relocation of the residents was done without eminent domain. If there are no houses, then there's no need to do much else. No crimes, except some illegal dumping, are likely to occur because there's nothing to steal and no one to rob. If necessary, the corners of the streets could be blocked off with cement barriers, but that's only necessary if there is a big concern for illegal dumping. For most of the streets in the area I describe there are a few barriers, but not for every street. As long as there are no vacant structures in the mothballed areas, crime won't be an issue, except for illegal dumping, which can be reduced by setting up the concrete barriers at the intersection of the streets or alleys.

[fryar]

You mean like this area? That is rural. Kinda looks like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre should be taking place there. That's so scary to me, I think I would leap at the chance not to end up living there.

On the other hand, Winfield Ave looks nice.

More seriously, we all know this is happening, and it only makes sense to address it coherently.

[royce]

Well, fryar, that is exactly the area I'm talking about.

[fryar]

Oh yeah, it totally is, I didn't mean to steal your thunder, but to add to it.

[Detroitnerd]

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.

This has perhaps gotten a little out of hand. I have no problem with doomsayers saying that city services suck and it's because of serious financial issues, as well as the fact that the city is run by corrupt profiteers.

But now we are beginning to blame RESIDENTS for STRETCHING POLICE AND FIRE SERVICES THIN? Um ...

[malmarson]

Hmmm....how to reply?

The original owners of Chene Trombley sold it in the 1990's. The new owner would probably sell, but he'd want quite a bit.

Yeah, I'd leave if the price was right. It's just, leaving would be-complicated: let's just leave the explaination at that.

However, I though I was coming from the side of the argument about possibly anchoring a neighborhood and then building it up!

WE do our own grass-the whole block. We mow the alley's. He walks the street and keeps it trash free. He even boards up house's. We live near a small comercial area that has some other businesses and factories around.

So explain to me, please, why I have a non-viable block....

[wolverine]

So explain to me, please, why I have a non-viable block....

Before I answer, let me ask a question. Who owns all that empty land on your block? Did you actually purchase it, or is it held by the city or county?