Leave it to the British press to once again do the job of real reporting that U.S. journalists apparently won't do.
This time, it's Tom Leonard at the UK Telegraph. From Flint, Michigan, he tells us of a "pioneering scheme" that involves tearing down entire neighborhoods and simply abandoning them -- oops, I'm sorry, I meant to say, "returning them to nature."
This is apparently what passes for sophisticated urban planning these days.
Here are key paragraphs from Leonard's story. Especially note the breathtaking anti-progress hostility of the idea's champion (bolds are mine; Getty picture at top right is from that story):
The government looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, one of the poorest US cities, which involves razing entire districts and returning the land to nature.
Local politicians believe the city must contract by as much as 40 per cent, concentrating the dwindling population and local services into a more viable area.
The radical experiment is the brainchild of Dan Kildee, treasurer of Genesee County, which includes Flint.
Having outlined his strategy to Barack Obama during the election campaign, Mr. Kildee has now been approached by the US government and a group of charities who want him to apply what he has learnt to the rest of the country.
Mr. Kildee said he will concentrate on 50 cities, identified in a recent study by the Brookings Institution, an influential Washington think-tank, as potentially needing to shrink substantially to cope with their declining fortunes.
Most are former industrial cities in the "rust belt" of America's Mid-West and North East. They include Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Memphis.
.... But Mr. Kildee, who has lived there nearly all his life, said he had first to overcome a deeply ingrained American cultural mindset that "big is good" and that cities should sprawl – Flint covers 34 square miles.
He said: "The obsession with growth is sadly a very American thing. Across the US, there's an assumption that all development is good, that if communities are growing they are successful. If they're shrinking, they're failing."
Kildee's odious "all development is good" characterization of those who might be less than pleased with his outlook shows that he has learned quickly from watching Dear Leader, the "master" of the straw-man argument. But you know what? I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that, in general, communities that are growing really are successful, and those that aren't are indeed failing.
This is amazing. They're not even interested in attracting industry, or in new developments to draw shoppers, or in convenient housing that might lure residents back into town, or even in park or recreational space. Kildee and those who agree with him, apparently including the President, prefer to do nothing and let the land sit abandoned -- while they proudly survey the non-fruits of their non-accomplishment. Maybe they'll hold reverse ribbon-cutting ceremonies. Flint's festivities could be emceed by infamous former resident Michael Moore.
If there's a virtue to doing nothing, it's that the government won't get involved in something ineffective and end up wasting tons of taxpayer money in the process.
President Obama in particular may remember one such project, made infamous by the Chicago Sun-Times and blogged on last fall by yours truly at NewsBusters, BizzyBlog, and elsewhere -- namely the $100,000 Obama Gazebo (or, alternatively, the "Obamazebo").
Now the same guy who couldn't be bothered following up on a project he said he would "work tirelessly" to have built is in charge of our country's $3-4 trillion federal budget, including an $800 billion alleged economic "stimulus." Let 8,000,000 Obamazebos bloom.
Pardon me, I need a drink. ....
.... Okay. Of course, the better answer for these near-dead neighborhoods would be to to sell the abandoned properties to private owners and see what they can do with them on their own. That sounds like that's the last thing Dan Kildee wants. Who needs progress anyway?
As to the U.S. media -- Where were they when this "brilliant" idea was hatched, and why are they apparently not shamed at being scooped by a UK paper?
As to public policy -- Who wants to bet against "stimulus" money finding its way towards some of these "demolish and do nothing" projects if Kildee's proposal becomes a 50-city reality? That wouldn't exactly be "stimulating," would it?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Need more
June 15, 2009 - 00:26 ET by mrbillWe here in the midwest have been doing this for years. As the young leave the old farmers behind...close up , move schools and consolidate school districts. Some cities try to hold on by giving out free land and homesteading...but no one wants much of it. Its all used by the big giant corporate farms. These small towns will eventually all die off .
Sort of like the "Buffalo Commons" idea where most of the entire midwest is shut off and turned back to natural state. Portions of north Texans through West Oklahoma, Western Kansas up through Nebraska, and the Dakotas, Wyoming , Eastern Colorado etc.
Heck ever both Dakotas recently talked of merging both North and South and becoming just plain DAKOTA. They cant afford to pave the highways with so little tax base.
The left want as many as
June 15, 2009 - 00:50 ET by bigtimerThe left want as many as they can in cities, govt. controlled and lemmings depending on them.
No growth, development or revenue outside of those bounds.
Mass control, mass dem votes.
As much as they can, they will do. ..as the cities go broke....and who pays for this in the end?
We are getting to a point of no return now...it is going to be interesting.
Kelo anyone?
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Sim City-Marxist Millenium Edition
June 15, 2009 - 02:07 ET by RR GOPObama and the other Marxists have no intention of letting these 'poor neighborhoods' stand. I'm not sure if they plan on keeping any of the Great Society-inspired housing projects. If they do, they will be rebuilt to Taj Mahal standards.
The main idea seems to be to get the poor (black namely) people out of failed communities and allow them to export themselves (and whatever failures they bring with them) to the suburbs through the Barney Frank housing scheme thing...that's simply not going away if you haven't noticed.
They will present this as a way of employing X number of workers building X number of structures and in removing the crime areas by dispersing the population, and/or by removing anything that could cause people to feel 'depressed', 'disenfranchised' or otherwise pissed off that they don't have decent places to live like those given to or stolen by (in their bigoted minds) mostly white middle class folk and Uncle Toms.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
Herd the sheeple into a
June 15, 2009 - 03:35 ET by George S PattonHerd the sheeple into a ghetto and then put up a fence, didn't europe try this in the 40's?
I may have missed...
June 15, 2009 - 07:04 ET by dmntd1I may have missed the post on here about how Michigan counties are returning to gravel roads, instead of re-paving them. Is Michigan the first stop in the U.S. of our becoming a third-world country?
That said, I'm not sure I disagree with razing these properties, on the condition that there's no one living in them, there are no homeless people in the community, and they are un-repairable. As long as the government owns them, might as well lean on the lefty-canard of housing the homeless in them, right? At least that might give them a place to bathe, shave, dress and go out looking for work..... ah wait, we don't want them to work, not when the 'Producers' will provide handouts for them!
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,
No One Living There
June 15, 2009 - 07:50 ET by allanfWhat does that matter? You just use eminent domain to seize property and force out the recalcitrant for the "public good". That's the socialist way.
Have you seen the 'Life without people' series?
June 15, 2009 - 20:18 ET by Ron_servativeThey used Flint to show us what it would look like. Particularly a large church that is about to fall down. If someone is keeping up with the taxes on that I'd be surprised.
Flint has already shrunk. We're talking about cleaning up the debris.
Send the city folks into the fields.
June 15, 2009 - 07:18 ET by ptgPol Pot, anther famous progressive leader, emptied out Cambodia's decaying inner cities. The residents were sent to the countryside to work in the fields. It might be necessary to do the same thing here. President Obama certainly will want to do something to lessen the CO2 emissions from our modern farm machinery. Parking these gas and diesel guzzlers and replacing them with human workers could be the solution.
We've already done this - it's called Detroit
June 15, 2009 - 07:31 ET by SickofLibsBut the residents did it all by themselves, and without bulldozers.
HopeyChangie.....
June 15, 2009 - 08:00 ET by connman....it feels soooooooo good! Really I can see it now, all the city eyesores bulldozed to return them to na-ture. Obama Bronze monuments (with stimulus funds no less) we'll have Barry on horseback, Barry standing over an internal combustion powered auto with a sledgehammer, Barry kissing RuPaul errr I mean Michelle, Barry standing over Bo with a pooper scooper, etc, etc. But getting back to them City Eyesores, how did they get to be eyesores? Hmmm maybe disastrous social policies that all failed over the past 40 years? Naaa... we wouldn't ever address that! Nopey,Nopey, Hopeychangie!
Pssssst <whispers> Emperor Barry isn't wearing any clothes!
It is an admission that GM
June 15, 2009 - 07:57 ET by pcantidoteIt is an admission that GM and Chrysler will fail and thus there is no reason to keep these cities around.
Enforce Term Limits if They Won't: Vote Against ALL Incumbents in 2010.
You're not seeing the "Big
June 15, 2009 - 09:26 ET by flyingmonkeyYou're not seeing the "Big Picture."
After all the demolition is complete, Obama plans on nationalizing Home Depot and appointing Jimmy Carter as "Carpentry Czar." He will use the materials at his disposal to construct single family cottages on prime real estate for non-working families that pay little to no taxes.
Then they can realize their dreams of a "Dismal Welfare City on a Hill" beholden to the Democrats for every aspect of their miserable existences.
Good!
June 15, 2009 - 09:36 ET by someloudthunderYou sir get a clap from me.
"Carpentry Czar"
Progress the "Progressives" Don't Want
June 15, 2009 - 09:45 ET by Wildcatter1980Modern-day "progressives" do not want this kind of progress because this kind of progress does not translate into the "progressives" having more power and control over the rest of us.
--
We already have term limits. They are called elections. We can & should vote out those who do not represent & serve us! - Me
There's a bit more you're missing.
June 15, 2009 - 10:20 ET by pbanks7I'm a little bit familiar with what's going on here. Flint is the armpit of Michigan. A lot of these properties blighted and abandoned, so nobody is paying any property tax on them. By law, after three years they revert to the county and are auctioned off. The first auction has a minimum bid of the delinquent tax and fees. Later in the year, they have another auction for no minimum bid whatsoever. So the county has already offered the property twice, unless they already have several adjacent properties that are already owned by the county. Then, sometimes they leave the property out of the auction so they can scrap the entire area. They also cherry pick some of the properties for resale at market prices.
If no one offers to buy the property, the county gets it by default, and you have abandoned properties that become hangouts for scum, and cost more to maintain than they are worth, still with no tax revenue. Kildee is doing the best he can with a lot of crappy options. At least this way you have a park that's not dragging down the value of the remaining property.
Michigan is a high tax state, and not a right-to-work state. Elvis has already left the building and took all of his fans with him too.
MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe, then confirming it with a poll.
I don't get the criticism here.....
June 15, 2009 - 11:49 ET by StogieGuyIn the case of many communities, it's simply time for them to face reality. For example, Flint has half the population that it had 25 years ago. Detroit has a fraction of the population that it had in 1950. And both cities will almost certainly shrink further. Victims of liberal policies and - dare I say it - union greed. Now, they are filled with pockets of empty buildings, houses and neighborhoods. Why not bulldoze them? Buying up the land (which is pretty much worthless anyway) and leaving it to trees and grass actually makes sense.
I am a conservative and, as such, also a pragmatist. This idea makes sense. Sure, the reporting on it is stilted and was a typically shoddy job. However, I am not sure why so many of my fellow conservatives here seem to be lining up to trash this idea. Hey, these are failed cities. Removing a bunch of crack houses is a great idea that makes sense. These buildings are trashed anyhow. Where's the loss? Not to mention that - if Michigan ever pulls it's head out of it's a$$ and grows some industry back - you can always redevelop these areas with new housing. And, it will be cheaper to do so at that point.
This thing is as simple as supply and demand. Right now, there's multiple times the supply (of real estate) as there is demand out there. All that does is exaserbate the decay of these cities. It's not sustainable and hasn't been in years. Ever drive through Detroit and see all the empty 12-story buildings and decayed city blocks? It's worse now than ever.
I say: tear 'em down!
As for Michiganians: you guys need to wake up and smell the rot. You don't like seeing your cities bulldozed and rural roads reduced to gravel? Time to totally clean house politically and change course by 180 degrees. Because nothing that your leaders have been doing has worked. From union-protection rules to the damn 10 cent bottle/can deposit law, your state is a disaster. And it's emptying out. It need not be so. Just don't be so dumb as to keep reelecting the same idiots as you have for decades. Dump Granholme and her cronies and do it ASAP!
It's not coming out in the post, but ....
June 15, 2009 - 14:06 ET by Tom Blumer.... the criticism should be that even when bulldozing, it never occurs to anyone to:
1. do something productive with the land (even a park would beat nothing).
2. do something about the underlying problems that led to this (high taxes, lousy schools, and crime)
3. do something about supposedly evil "urban sprawl" by doing something about item 2.
I think inner-ring suburbs should explore "reverse annexation." I bet they could do more with the properties involved than just "send them back to nature."
Not in this case
June 15, 2009 - 14:38 ET by StogieGuyYou're thinking in terms of a normal, somewhat healthy city. However, in the case of a place like Flint or Detroit or Youngstown, there's no money to do something "productive" with land. Honestly, space is something they have more and more of. The trouble with your #1 is that, if you plop a park in there, you have to pay for upkeep and for police protection. Also, that spot is forever a park - it will probably never be developed. Let the woods grow back in and, if by some miracle, you can develop there again it will be easier to do.
Youngstown, OH has been leasing some of these lands to farmers. The cleared land is used to grow crops and they are able to pay the city lease AND make some profit on the deal. Not a bad plan.
On #2, I could not agree more. Also, the idea of inner ring suburbs being able to annex some of these areas is a good one in theory, but very dependent on the details. For example, what inner ring 'burb will want to annex an run-down ghost neighborhood that's inhabited by winos and crack addicts? None. Not to mention that the politics of this makes it complicated (as is 'it's MY territory').
The back to nature thing is the cheapest way to deal with this issue, there's nothing wrong with it, and no maintenance is involved. It also allows for the future development of something worthwhile.
It's cheaper for developers
June 15, 2009 - 14:49 ET by balboaIt's cheaper for developers to take land with nothing on it than repurpose already developed sites. That's why there's sprawl. There are so many towns where the downtown has been abandoned, and everything is built out on the fringes, including malls, strip malls, and malls.
The criticism I have is not
June 15, 2009 - 14:47 ET by ironchefofmunchiesThe criticism I have is not about the idea being proposed but rather the unwillingness to correctly identify and correct the underlying cause of the decline.
People left Detroit (and Flint, and the other cities) as a direct result of the economic policies implemented by government and industrial leaders (management and unions) in these towns.
The real problem is that the people leaving take the same discredited ideas with them to their new town (Ohio for example) and do the same thing all over again.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".
Life After People
June 15, 2009 - 14:38 ET by nolotrippenThis is a History Channel entry that gives many examples of what such towns would look like in 1, 10, 100 years without bulldozers being necessary.
By the way, it's an interesting show, except for the "Man is Bad," "Mother Earth would be better off without humans" editorializing. It's also big on evolution and global warming (just get those humans gone already!).
Gary, Indiana
June 15, 2009 - 14:46 ET by StogieGuyThey used Gary, Indiana as an example of life 35 years after people. Whole sections of that city are abandoned. Another fine candidate for the bulldozer.
The only problem with the bulldozer is that it can't do anything about the human garbage that inhabits these areas. Drive around a place like Gary and not only is the decay absolutely creepy, but the people hanging around there might as well be from another world. Social problems galore. And, believe me, I don't want them being attracted to the Chicago area and I'm darn sure that folks in suburban Merrillville don't want them either.
I'm starting to root for
June 15, 2009 - 14:49 ET by ironchefofmunchiesI'm starting to root for the planet to show those pesky humans who is REALLY in charge!
It's the Corruption
June 15, 2009 - 17:16 ET by slickwillie2001Inner cities tend to be under the boot heel of oldtime corrupt and often racist democratic party machines. That's why industrialists or national homebuilders don't want to redevelop there. It's much easier to deal with friendlier governments in the suburbs.
Here's a good example, -the sad story of Detroit's convention center:
"Cobo Hall costs the city of Detroit $15 million a year. The rundown building in the heart of the city needs major repairs. The state has offered $20 million in upfront cash to buy Cobo and put it im the hands of a regional authority -- an authority structured so that it would give the Detroit representative veto power over any decisions. The deal would finance a $288 million renovation and expansion of the crumbling structure. All the deal needed to become official was approval from the Detroit City Council. Yet Tuesday, despite a push from Mayor Kenneth Cockrel and support from mayoral candidate David Bing, the council, in an act of city-centric chauvinism, voted 5-3 to turn it down.
Why did they vote it down? Because, you see, the racist city council wants to keep suburbans (you cam interpret that as 'white folks') from controlling their 'jewel.' Never mind that the jewel has bled money from the city for years. Never mind that Detroit doesn't have the money to fix it up, and will lose the auto show. I say we rename Cobo Hall the 'Monica Conyers Mausoleum' should this come to pass."
Ref: Detroit City Counci, Racist and Stupid: http://isthisblogon.blogspot.com
Now, why would any businessman be stupid enough to try and deal with these fools?