Detroit: “There Is NO ‘Plan’!”

[Relayer76]

The people themselves aren't costs. What is a cost is the dollar value of providing services for 3 houses on a block that once contained 20. It isn't cost effective for a city that has extremely limited resources. Services include police, fire, schools, garbage pickup etc. You can say they aren't getting much in the way of service now, which is probably true, but that doesn't erase the fact that there is a huge cost to provide the services that are currently provided. Buy the house for twice, or even three times what the most optimistic appraisal is. Pay their moving costs to the closest neighborhood that is functioning. Then shut down the old neighborhood until some time in the future when it is needed. And I do mean shut it down!

There is no business that will make a short-term profit. Face it, the housing industry, particularly in the city, will be non-existent for some time to come.

Seems like a no brainer to me. Once people are concentrated in functioning neighbourhoods that work, then these neighbourhoods might eventually prosper and expand into less populated or vacant neighbourhoods. If people are going to meetings to complain about the lack of services in half empty neighbourhoods they have to be told that services will only get worse, not better. Its sad but there is no other way out of the mess.

[mwilbert]

The biggest fallacy is the belief that some "suburbanite" will come in and scoop up all this available land to build condos for rich folks. If that's the case, why hasn't that happened in Brush Park, where rich folks could be only a stones throw away from the downtown nightlife? Surely, if the rich wanted to move back to Detroit and keep out Detroit's poor, then that would be the place to build, right?

In principle I think you are correct--there isn't overwhelming demand to redevelop Brush Park by suburbanites, and it should be a prime target. In practice I think that there are a few entities that own most of Brush Park and have an inflated idea of what the land is worth, hence no development. I'm not sure that this disproves the "suburbanites coming to get you" argument, but it does put a cap on how much they are willing to pay to do it.

[Hermod]

Yeah. It was all supposed to be PRIVATOPIA. Instead of city or county governments providing services, it was to be all funded by association fees. But then when your development is never finished, and when the residents who remain have to choose between association fees or heating bills and mortgages, yes, your association tanks, and people have to beseech the city or county units of government for plowing, salting, etc. So the "private government" is essentially bankrupt. Not to mention the houses hog so much resources they'll likely be obsolete in 25 years.

But forget about all that. Let's concentrate on deciding what's best for Detroit in the same old top-down fashion. Knock it down and hope somethin' better comes along.

Most homeowners associations maintian a swimming pool, a club house, and the sign at the entrance to "Heavenly Acres". As soon as the subdivision streets are completed and paved, the county assumes ownership [[and the builder can't get a C.O. on houses till then). If the HOA goes belly-up, the pool gets drained, the clubhouse is closed, and the sign crumbles. I have lived in several neighborhoods over the years where for a couple of different reasons, the original developer did not complete the subdivision and it was filled in piecemeal by other builder/developers or by individuals buying a lot and having a builder put up a house for them. I have been involved with a few HOA and you just live with it.

[Fnemecek]

If you ask people in neighborhoods what they want, they will say SERVICES. That's what's so tricky about this business. You have to frame the debate very carefully, show them why they must voluntarily move, but soft-pedal the fact that the land they formerly lived on will be a profitable piece of real estate for somebody else after you move them off. Then, of course, that's when the city will begin to provide services again.

This, of course, assumes that there will actually be an improvement in services if/when people voluntarily move. That, in my opinion, is a huge assumption.

[Detroitnerd]

This, of course, assumes that there will actually be an improvement in services if/when people voluntarily move. That, in my opinion, is a huge assumption.

I saw it over and over again when I lived in New York. Mom and pop owners of buildings gradually would sell out, because the services were so awful. Gradually, one wealthy landholder would put together a large parcel, as the mom-and-poppers left. Then, since he had the political power to demand it, services would be restored.

In my experience, the idea that the richest people get the juice is an assumption you may fully rely upon.

[Wesley Mouch]

Detroitnerd is right. So the secret is to ensure that the 'victims' of downsizing are made participants in the eventual rebirth of their currently owned property. I understand other cities have found ways of reducing costs of servicing low-density areas, relocating residents, and then engaging them in the eventual redevelopment, if and when that happens.

[GPCharles]

I understand other cities have found ways of reducing costs of servicing low-density areas, relocating residents, and then engaging them in the eventual redevelopment, if and when that happens.

Please - let us all in on the secret!

[Fnemecek]

I saw it over and over again when I lived in New York. Mom and pop owners of buildings gradually would sell out, because the services were so awful. Gradually, one wealthy landholder would put together a large parcel, as the mom-and-poppers left. Then, since he had the political power to demand it, services would be restored.

That's a very different version of what I experienced in New York. When were you there? And what part?

There were a lot of mom & pops who sold out in the late 80s and early 90s. However, when Giuliani came in, he managed to turn things around rather quickly.

In my experience, the idea that the richest people get the juice is an assumption you may fully rely upon.

Rich folks, generally speaking, don't bother using their juice to get government to do things. They tend to bring in private contractors who take care of security and such for them.

The thing is, and this is the important part, there's no guarantee that rearranging where people live will actually result in some rich coming in to do anything - either with private contractors, "juiced" public works, or whatever.