Free Land; an idea for Detroit?

[DetroitDad]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40220738/?slide=1

[Richard]

No mule?

Detroit , well the taxes are more then the land value and at this point it would not pay to build a new house on it and last but not least the speculators would grab it all up anyways. you can buy 1200 to 2000 acres in Texas or New Mexico for less then $5000 and be way out in the sticks.

Nice thought though.

[DetroitPlanner]

Muskegon would be interesting to watch.

[Richard]

Muskegon would be interesting to watch.

Interesting their rate reduction on the water ,if you employ 25 its 50% reduction but if you employ 100 it drops to 20% I wonder if they are still going to offer the non tax stuff if the new tax cut thing passes.

http://michiganeconomicdevelopment.org/muskegon-25/

Qualified businesses will also receive a free boat slip or season hockey tickets at the LC Walker Arena.

and you cannot even get anybody to answer the phone in the city of Detroit.

[Danny]

Free land in Detroit BAD IDEAL! The city will lose more revenue, then spending what's in its budget. It will NEVER happen.

[DetroitDad]

Am I the only one who actually read that through? There would be stipulations that they would have to build a house on the land, use the house as a primary residence for so many years, etc. Go back and click through those photos. There is a short overview of what each of these communities are doing. It goes right along with re-densifying Detroit. This could be used for infill housing. It makes individual home building more cost effective.

IIt seems like a great idea to me. Here are some of the highlights:

The first family to take advantage of the free land moved onto their new property the fall of 2008, also availing funds from the USDA’s Rural Development Agency for building their home, and they qualified for $10,000 down payment assistance from the Southwest Iowa Planning Council.

To take advantage of the free land in Marne, applicants need only to submit a proposed floor plan for the house they want to build. It’s not restrictive, but Baxter notes that it must be within reason-- no trailer homes, no horses or livestock. Among the unreasonable proposals for the land: “They want to bring a camper in hogs, or store junk there.”

....If this sounds like home, then consider a free 86’ x 133’ lot on the Homestake subdivision on the northwest side of town. Those who claim lots must build a house on the property within one year.

One city in southeastern Nebraska that reaped the benefits of the original Homesteading Act of 1862 has created a new version of what worked so well before. The Homestead Act of 2010 offers several parcels of land for free on a first-come, first-served basis. As with the original act, applicants must occupy their parcels of land for five years.

[Callo]

It won't work.

I feel bad for anyone who thinks that it will.

[Richard]

The problem with $1 or free homes when used as an incentive to draw residents is the amount of convents and required red tape involved and completely skips over the average person buying a fixer upper and living in it which will have a bigger and more solid and longer lasting impact on a neighborhood.

People are drawn to up and coming neighborhoods ,I will snap some photos of a neighborhood that was created on a x 1 block site ,the houses were moved in verses demolition, rebuilt,then sold to residents, considering at the time this was happening the movers required police protection you can kinda see what type of neighborhood it was. Now 8 years later there is a 1 mile stretch that has been impacted greatly for the better as a direct result,it is not complete yet nor perfect but you can now walk down the street without getting shot anyways.

Other then the police relocating which I think is an excellent idea with the exception of the $1000 part ,forget that part ,they are leaving their house everyday not knowing if they are going to return and with all of the vacant houses you want to charge them $1000 for the privilege of moving into the city limits?

Wanting everybody to move from the suburbs? Why? This is America we have that right or freedom of movement, ones personal economics or preferences will determine that part.

This massive in your face "brain drain" we only want 30 somethings in our new Detroit is detrimental and does not make anybody over the age of 35 feel very welcome,or is it because of that older age group who has been down that road of dealing with rebirth cities are more astute in that process and more experienced in dealing with an unmoving political power?

Tech people will gravitate towards tech stuff they will seek it out when relocating
not everybody relocating to the city will be running around with pocket protectors coming up with the next OS system. You still need the nuts and bolts people so do not forget about them in your rise to silicon valley. Silicon valley is a very large draw because of all of the VC tech funding companies are located there.

So back to square one,how does one encourage others to relocate to Detroit?
I guess if you could take a step back and view yourself as someone wanting to relocate somewhere what would encourage them to relocate to Detroit and how do they find out about that? The first thing they do is sit down in front of a computer and research Detroit and what do you see?

Is there a readily available positive guide available to anybody wishing to relocate covering at least the basics? One of the things one looks at when making the relocation aspects is the economics of it,so they call the city in regards to basic services,I can tell you from experience the front line city employees as a majority are not your welcome to Detroit committee.

So pretend that your are in small town USA and are looking at relocating and go through the process as if you do not live in Detroit you may be surprised how many of the simplest things that do not cost any money to change have the biggest impact.

IMHO

[Johnnny5]

I can't read the linked article due to the crazy pop up ads, but giving away land in Detroit is not a viable solution now, nor in the near future. Vacant residential land in the city is basically worthless at the moment as you can buy existing homes for less than 1/2 of what new construction would cost. A program to give away city owned homes may have some merit, but again there are so many privately owned homes available that there's little financial incentive to take on the major restorations required for homes that have been left vacant.

[Richard]

[QOUTE]Am I the only one who actually read that through?[QOUTE]

DD take it one step further,go to ebay and do a search on Michigan real estate ,in the city listed you can buy a lot from $50 to $200 with no strings attached.

In Detroit case it is a numbers game 1200 sqft would cost @75 per sqft if not more excluding land would be $90,000 so right there you would need to eliminate any neighborhood that would not support a $90,000 house,it is based on comps if houses are selling for an average of $15000 and many are less ,then the bank will not finance the construction because as soon as the house is built it is worth less then what it cost to build.