Detroitnerd, I think you made a very thoughtful post. Does a right-sizing plan have to be entirely top-down, though?
For example, how does right-size mean focusing on downtown at the expense of the neighorhoods? Based on what I have read, the point of right-sizing will be to strengthen the most healthy neighborhoods and encourage people to move there. Just given the demographics of the city, this will necessarily entail investing in some of the city's most outlying neighborhoods and encouraging people to move out of some of the inner city neighborhoods. Downtown would certainly be included in any such plan, but I do not think it needs to be at the expense of the neighborhoods.
Also, while large projects may result after right-sizing if land is consolidated, I think that would be a materially different process than what has occurred in the past. In the past, large projects were used as focal points of redevelopment projects [[an "If You Build It, They Will Come" approach). Large projects that result from right-sizing will provide potential benefits, but are not a reason for right-sizing. In fact, many large tracts of land may become greenspace or parkland.
Finally, I do not think that such a process needs to trample all over homeowners rights. Mayor Bing has stated that he does not plan forced relocations. I do think that some relocation must be encouraged, however, because the whole point of right-sizing is to reduce costs, make provision of services more effective, and promote healthier neighborhoods.
The question I would ask is the following: are you against any right-sizing at all, or are you opposed to right-sizing along the lines of past, failed development ideas? I can agree with you on the latter, but I do think some right-sizing is necessary and would improve the health of the city in the long-term.
Bookmarks