Duggan outlines plans for 'one city for all of us' and new blight-fighting effort

[ABetterDetroit]

He is a politician that is up for reelection,if that line is followed then growth is limited to HUD and local taxpayers,when those funds run out then development stops.

No private investor is going to self fund a project and take a 20% bath.

Capital only cares about the final numbers and the project as a whole.

20% percent of units can lose X amount as long as the other 80% covers that X loss and a sufficient return on the investment.

Money has no political ideology, it simply seeks a net positive return wherever it can find it. This simple fact has always been a large pain in the ass for folks that think their ideology is the single most important issue. Coincidently these people are from both the far right and the left.

[Richard]

Capital only cares about the final numbers and the project as a whole.

20% percent of units can lose X amount as long as the other 80% covers that X loss and a sufficient return on the investment.

Money has no political ideology, it simply seeks a net positive return wherever it can find it. This simple fact has always been a large pain in the ass for folks that think their ideology is the single most important issue. Coincidently these people are from both the far right and the left.

I am thinking the majority of projects getting off of the ground are not 100% self funded,mostly because the newspapers show the incentives used in the funding chain.

Concidering Mr. Gilbert was incentivize $200 million to start out with,which bought a lot of property at that time,then on top of that every property then was eligible for even more tax credits on the repair side.

I am not debating if that was good,bad or indifferent just as an example of the scope of non self funding to a large part.


When an individual can buy a house and rehab it and sell it for a profit is usually a good factor of when it becomes feasible to self fund.

If an individual purchases a property and uses incentives to rehabilitate then resales for a profit that is playing with numbers at the taxpayers expense.

I like the boarding up aspect verses demolition because if the house has good bones then it is worth rehabilitation and more apt to be of value to the city long term.

I like that house available on the canal over there,I am thinking maybe if I put my currant houses in my kids names and have them buy it and lease it to me,because in theroy I would be over 55 and broke and have a slim chance of finding employment because I really did not graduate high school,my 24 collage credits from the military probably means nothing.

So HUD can cover my rent,I have the right to pay no water and I could probably get a few roommates to cover the taxes.

I could actually retire in some nice digs living two doors down from the mayor and be the poster child.

No worries,because the concept of actually helping me get a better education or any kind of skills training so I could actually buy and maintain on my own would not be in the cards,you know,just kinda wharehouse me.

So would that be considered far left or far right?

[ABetterDetroit]

I am thinking the majority of projects getting off of the ground are not 100% self funded,mostly because the newspapers show the incentives used in the funding chain.

Concidering Mr. Gilbert was incentivize $200 million to start out with,which bought a lot of property at that time,then on top of that every property then was eligible for even more tax credits on the repair side.

I am not debating if that was good,bad or indifferent just as an example of the scope of non self funding to a large part.


When an individual can buy a house and rehab it and sell it for a profit is usually a good factor of when it becomes feasible to self fund.

If an individual purchases a property and uses incentives to rehabilitate then resales for a profit that is playing with numbers at the taxpayers expense.

I like the boarding up aspect verses demolition because if the house has good bones then it is worth rehabilitation and more apt to be of value to the city long term.

I like that house available on the canal over there,I am thinking maybe if I put my currant houses in my kids names and have them buy it and lease it to me,because in theroy I would be over 55 and broke and have a slim chance of finding employment because I really did not graduate high school,my 24 collage credits from the military probably means nothing.

So HUD can cover my rent,I have the right to pay no water and I could probably get a few roommates to cover the taxes.

I could actually retire in some nice digs living two doors down from the mayor and be the poster child.

No worries,because the concept of actually helping me get a better education or any kind of skills training so I could actually buy and maintain on my own would not be in the cards,you know,just kinda wharehouse me.

So would that be considered far left or far right?

Thats easy it is "gaming the system". It happens all the time in all kinds of ways, greed and selfishness exist everywhere right, left and middle.

Back on your "self funded" it's all well and good and there is not a thing wrong with it but just because some people accomplish that exact scenario doesn't mean that the process is a realistic answer.

Credit is how the American economy was built. We even now have a Republican President that built a empire on leveraged debt and declared himself the "King of Debt".

Credit and Debt are not going away any sooner than we grow gills.