Detroit's new revenue increase plan?

[neavling]

It's a really tough issue. Obviously something different needs to happen. But one problem with Bing's plan is it presumes people can and will move. Someone living along Houston-Whittier can't just move without money to buy a new place. Their houses wouldn't fetch $1,000. And once you improve neighborhoods, housing values go up, making it even more difficult for poor or old people to afford. Bing's plan sacrifices the most vulnerable residents for stronger neighborhoods. It's an issue of priority, and it's not an easy one.

[corktownyuppie]

It's a really tough issue. Obviously something different needs to happen. But one problem with Bing's plan is it presumes people can and will move. Someone living along Houston-Whittier can't just move without money to buy a new place. Their houses wouldn't fetch $1,000. And once you improve neighborhoods, housing values go up, making it even more difficult for poor or old people to afford. Bing's plan sacrifices the most vulnerable residents for stronger neighborhoods. It's an issue of priority, and it's not an easy one.

Richard, I appreciate the consideration. CY for CC: "It's all his fault."

Steve [[Neavling), two things to consider with Bing's plan/vision:

[[1) It's not public [[in any way that I know of, at least). It'll be interesting to see how people respond to the DetroitWorks report, as it was presumably put together taking public opinion into consideration.

[[2) Part of the problem with re-concentrating city population is people's willingness to move. As for the financial ability, you are right in part about the constraints. Property values will go up as neighborhoods become more stable. The one advantage the city has in this regard is that it's the largest land-owner in the city. So it's not like we're trying to bid on property owned by some major corporation that's trying to squeeze every dollar out of it.

Take, for example, a burnt out block that might only have 3 occupied homes on it. They each owe $3,000 per year in property taxes, but no one in their right mind would ever buy the property form them for more than $5,000. I'm not saying that they're going to sell their disadvantaged property and the move on over into Indian Village.

But there are enough blocks like this that the City could approach all of those owners and say, "Look, here is a block of vacant land over by Trumbull north of I-75." We've worked out a deal with a developer where he/she is willing to build 20 townhouse condominiums. We will give them the land for free. ​We won't charge him or her property taxes.And before you freak out about corporate conspiracies, just sit tight and listen, because what will eventually happen is that you will be getting the land for free. Now take the $3,000 per year in property taxes you were paying and that will be what you pay the developer for the next 15 years in a Rent-to-Own policy.

After 15 years, you own the property. The developer has collected $540,000 in payments for a house that probably cost $75,000 to build, but now you own the property on a block that is full of residents and is likely worth more than burnt out property on Whittier.

Because of the street-design of the subdivision replaced normal city blocks with a cul-de-sac subdivision style layout [[which I hate, btw...but it is much easier to patrol because you have a perimeter with only 1-2 points of entry), as well as your proximity to other functional neighborhoods, crime is way down.

What about the $3,000 per year that the city would have to forego in property taxes for the next 15 years? Well, since there were only 3-people on that burnt out block, the city was able to fence it off and shut it down once people moved out. Shutting off services to the infrastructure, police, fire, and water saved lots of money. As well, since you're patrolling the perimeter of a cul-de-sac rather than the block system with all its hidden corners and alley-ways, it's much easier to secure property.

I'm not saying I have all the answers, because I don't. What I'm saying is that because it's such political suicide to have the conversation publicly, it's done in backrooms [[or on forums like this), and that's how conspiracy theories start about land-taking and plantations re-opening start up.

We can more efficiently use the land and resources we have. The biggest thing in the way is dealing with the political process of determining how to best do so.

[corktownyuppie]

It's a really tough issue. Obviously something different needs to happen. But one problem with Bing's plan is it presumes people can and will move. Someone living along Houston-Whittier can't just move without money to buy a new place. Their houses wouldn't fetch $1,000. And once you improve neighborhoods, housing values go up, making it even more difficult for poor or old people to afford. Bing's plan sacrifices the most vulnerable residents for stronger neighborhoods. It's an issue of priority, and it's not an easy one.

http://www.freep.com/article/2013010...text|FRONTPAGE

The Detroit Future City plan offers hundreds of ideas for urban reinvention. Here are some of the most innovative:...

• Create a voluntary “house swap” program to help residents move from the most depopulated areas into stronger neighborhoods.

I'm a genius. CY for City Council