Observations of Detroit after a visit

[Shai_Hulud]

From a macro perspective, I don't think so, no.

There aren't going to be fewer drug dealers or scrappers or arsonists. Obviously if you demolish a bunch of drug houses, the activity will just go to other houses. There will always be empty houses, or houses in tax arrears, or normally occupied houses where such activities can occur.

The problem, as always in Detroit, is confusing the symptoms with the sickness. You can demolish every last abandoned house in the city, and you won't have done much.

Basic crime/law enforcement theory says otherwise. Have you ever been to Detroit?

There is a difference between a normal level of available housing stock that is maintained, surveilled and policed and an abandoned, open to the elements house in a neighborhood that is 50% abandoned, open to the elements houses that the police don't bother with.

An abandoned house provides a target for crime [[arson, scrapping, vandalism), a means to commit the crime, [[arson, scrapping, vandalism, prostitution, drugs), a barrier to visibility and surveillance [[an incentive to all crime), a high payoff for all of the above criminals because now they can take their sweet time, and most importantly, a very low chance of getting caught.

Remove the abandoned house and you have removed all of the above. Now, criminals cannot operate with impunity and some will effectively be deterred from committing crimes. For those that don't the entire city, or at least large swaths of it, is a much harder target. Now, we have a snow ball's chance in hell of catching criminals when they commit crimes.

Pie in the sky stuff, I know.

[Detroitnerd]

The people who say they want to save Detroit treat it like a cancer patient, trying to cut it apart one piece at a time. The demolition contractors are very happy with this strategy, so don't expect this "conventional wisdom" to be challenged anytime soon.

Who needs history? The employees of Adamo need some new trucks with roomy crew cabs to park in their McMansion driveways, dude! That's the kind of prosperity we're driving! Let's roll!

[Bham1982]

Basic crime/law enforcement theory says otherwise. Have you ever been to Detroit?

Really? Can you point me to this "basic crime/law enforcement theory" that says you reduce illegal activities by demolishing the venues where these activities take place? We fight meth abuse by demolishing trailer parks?

That makes no sense whatsover, as you'll just be playing crime wack-a-mole.

An abandoned house provides a target for crime [[arson, scrapping, vandalism), a means to commit the crime, [[arson, scrapping, vandalism, prostitution, drugs), a barrier to visibility and surveillance [[an incentive to all crime), a high payoff for all of the above criminals because now they can take their sweet time, and most importantly, a very low chance of getting caught.

I don't think this makes any sense, and I don't think you "get" the neighborhood-level problems in Detroit. It isn't abandoned houses that are the big targets for crime, it's occupied houses, as criminals generally need the presence of people and/or "stuff", not a burnt out shell.

The homes being demolished aren't crack houses. They're burned-out, scrapped-out shells. Drug dealers set up in homes that are, for all intensive purposes, occupied, even if they are sometimes technically abandoned or in some nebulous situation. Scrappers target recently [[or currently) occupied homes with "stuff", obviously not burnt-out shells.

Basically, if you drive down the street, and notice a house is obviously "abandoned", then you don't have to worry too much about the local crack kingpin setting up shop. He likely wants heat, electricity, running water, furniture, and an intact roof. The problem homes usually look like "normal" occupied homes.

If your theory were correct [[stop crime by demolishing venues where crime occurs) I would imagine the city would have to reverse course and start tearing down occupied homes in good shape, rather than tearing down abandoned wrecks.

[Shai_Hulud]

Really? Can you point me to this "basic crime/law enforcement theory" that says you reduce illegal activities by demolishing the venues where these activities take place? We fight meth abuse by demolishing trailer parks?

That makes no sense whatsover, as you'll just be playing crime wack-a-mole.

It's not remove the venue, it's remove the target of the crime. If there is a rash of car thefts, you make sure to put the car in the garage. Clearly, this primarily applies to arson, scrapping and vandalism because only in those crimes is the empty house the target. Fortunately for us, occupied structures are largely ignored.

I don't think this makes any sense, and I don't think you "get" the neighborhood-level problems in Detroit. It isn't abandoned houses that are the big targets for crime, it's occupied houses, as criminals generally need the presence of people and/or "stuff", not a burnt out shell.

The homes being demolished aren't crack houses. They're burned-out, scrapped-out shells. Drug dealers set up in homes that are, for all intensive purposes, occupied, even if they are sometimes technically abandoned or in some nebulous situation. Scrappers target recently [[or currently) occupied homes with "stuff", obviously not burnt-out shells.

Tell my Aunt on Garland between Mack and Canfield that burned out shells aren't targets for drug activity. There was such a structure two doors down from her that was filled with passed out smoke heads for most of the 90's. No, the criminal enterprise wasn't being ran out of the house. But it was incentive for the dope man and his customers to stay nearby, which they did until it most of the rest of the block was demolished.

If your theory were correct [[stop crime by demolishing venues where crime occurs) I would imagine the city would have to reverse course and start tearing down occupied homes in good shape, rather than tearing down abandoned wrecks.

I'm in support of both. You aren't repopulating Brightmoor in our lifetime. I'd like to see a key swap. Knock on the door, offer a comparable house in a better neighborhood, or cash if necessary. Then flatten everything.

[Chicago48]

Basic crime/law enforcement theory says otherwise. Have you ever been to Detroit?

There is a difference between a normal level of available housing stock that is maintained, surveilled and policed and an abandoned, open to the elements house in a neighborhood that is 50% abandoned, open to the elements houses that the police don't bother with.

An abandoned house provides a target for crime [[arson, scrapping, vandalism), a means to commit the crime, [[arson, scrapping, vandalism, prostitution, drugs), a barrier to visibility and surveillance [[an incentive to all crime), a high payoff for all of the above criminals because now they can take their sweet time, and most importantly, a very low chance of getting caught.

Remove the abandoned house and you have removed all of the above. Now, criminals cannot operate with impunity and some will effectively be deterred from committing crimes. For those that don't the entire city, or at least large swaths of it, is a much harder target. Now, we have a snow ball's chance in hell of catching criminals when they commit crimes.

Pie in the sky stuff, I know.

This makes a lot of sense. Especially if you're trying to attract people to the city and to invest. If you've got a load of dilapidated houses, it attracts vagrants, it attracts criminal activity,it's an eye sore.

Anywho, the neighbor told me that the city told her they were going to buy her house. There are only 2 houses on the block, the east side of Detroit, that are inhabited. The others are dilapidated and unoccupied.
If it costs the city $5000 to buy a house, then that eliminates taxes, but what if the neighbor decides it's not worth it to keep the house and moves, thereby vacating it? Then you've got an eyesore and attraction for crime. Which is the more cost efficient? Buy it, demolish it, or abandon it and let it stand?

I'm interested in anyone who has a "grand plan" by the city for demolishing the properties and a timeline.

[Richard]

This makes a lot of sense. Especially if you're trying to attract people to the city and to invest. If you've got a load of dilapidated houses, it attracts vagrants, it attracts criminal activity,it's an eye sore.

Some see a dilapidated house as an opportunity and would use that as a reason to move to the city,but instead of using that dilapidated house to create the opportunity it gets demolished,taking the opportunity away and eliminating the potential tax base for a much longer time.

The city is using the 500 mil,which can be used in more positive ways to rebuild through incentives verses destroy.

Mr. Gilbert is on the demo panel.

Everything seems to be based on today and because we see it that way today it will be like that tomorrow,the city is supposed to be setting and preserving today the foundations for tomorrow,long term.

The demolition panel was going to inspect each house and determine the feasibility of the structures and if they were rehab worthy before the finial order of demolition.Are they doing that?

Short term is it feasible to rehab a structure or is it looked at long term,or is it today it is not feasible so it goes.

To me the largest deterrent in the city is the totally whacked out thought process of the property tax structure,change that.

They could take $100 million of the $500 million and create a 30 block incentive zone and have a payback for generations to come.As it is once the $100 million is spent,it is gone, no more but the interest payments left for generations to come.Where is the taxpayer return?

No where does it say that the $500 mil must be used for demolitions only,it is for what ever needs to be done to re-establish the neighborhoods hardest hit by the crack years.

It is whack-a-mole with no end game.