US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive

[Sassy]

What do you think of this idea?    How are the US cities going to survive if they're bulldozed?   

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.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5516536/US-cities-may-have-to-be-bulldozed-in-order-to-survive.html

[ScottA]

I kinda like this idea so long as they only bulldoze areas that have become rundown, abandoned or slums. If they start buying and bulldozing perfectly good houses that have been forclosed on then it's just another scamobama.

[MountainDon]

If you look back at the decline of many small towns as people moved away to larger places, you can see how that might make sense in some locations. Rather than leave derelict buildings the old could be removed if they are beyond rehabilitation. If there is no need for any new development because of the population shrinking or being stagnant it would also not make sense to build anything new.

At first thought it seems radical, but probably os the answer in some places.

[Phssthpok]

I kinda like this idea so long as they only bulldoze areas that have become rundown, abandoned or slums. If they start buying and bulldozing perfectly good houses that have been forclosed on then it's just another scamobama.

When I first heard about this, back before the election, The gist of the idea was to evict residents from low population, outlying neighborhood, Eminent Domain their homes and raze the area in order to reduce the cost to the city of providing services to a larger area.

Perfectly good homes, mostly owned by older folks, in mostly vacant neighborhoods getting stolen and leveled to save the CITY money.

[MountainDon]

If the population is shifting out of areas, and if this is more than likely going to be a continuing non-reversible trend then this idea may need a good hard look. Perhaps what was once a large urban/suburban area should be downsized into a few smaller areas with 'nature' in between?

Where does one draw the line at providing services such as water, sewer, gas and electrical, plus fire and police, to outlying areas if there are decaying neighborhoods interspersed in between?  I can see this being a serious drag on some spread out cities. Maybe there is more to be said for not permitting unrestrained suburban growth? Food for thought.

[glenn kangiser]

Assuming that a poor or retired person on a declining or soon nonexistent pension,  has as much right to live in what they can afford as I do, I would have to ask, what if my house was one of them chosen to be bulldozed - hmm

I realize our congress critters  come mostly from affluent (or is it effluent?) families and the poor are of little consequence to them.  What provisions are made to take care of the low income people living there. hmm  (Sorry - not enough time to research it now).

[Virginia Gent]

This idea brings about conflict in me. In one sense, I'm a Libertarian and a fan of free choice; on the other I'm also a fan of smart growth of cities/towns/villages/etc. Perhaps this situation in life will show that living in centered cities/towns/villages/etc is a better way than urban sprawl.

I, myself, am a fan of small villages however; I think they function better and are safer than large cities. I'm quite on board with Thomas Jefferson on his views of cities.

[glenn kangiser]

Comments from those who have been there.

http://mat-rodina.blogspot.com/2009/06/america-walks-road-of-collectivism.html

[Sassy]

Makes me shudder!

[Virginia Gent]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of government forcing people outta their houses and telling cities/towns/villages/whatever how & where to grow; I am a fan of smart growth though I feel that the citizens should do that on their own. I have no qualms with, except that it is Unconstitutional, the city offering to buy up this land to "Give it back to nature" but forcing a buy on it is wrong. That is one thing I don't agree with in our Constitution, the right of Uncle Sam to step in and take private property citing "Fair compensation" as the ethical reasoning to do it.

And not to side-track this thread, but America has long since been a Collectivist nation; perhaps not on par with Russia, China, or Europe, but we are one none-the-less. It always makes me chuckle when I hear people scream that we are becoming a Socialist nation. I can't help but think, "Where have you been living the last 80+ years?" what do y'all think our tax dollars go towards? Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, Unemployment, Subsidies and the list goes on. That is Socialism right there; it's the taking of wealth from one area and giving it to another through means of taxation. Not to mention your federal income tax dollars go towards an elite group of bankers to pay for, solely, the interest our Congress runs up each time they borrow money from the Federal Reserve.

[glenn kangiser]

I think most of the socialist programs are also being ripped off by the elite.  I don't count on any of it.

[rwanders]

it's the taking of wealth from one area and giving it to another through means of taxation. Not to mention your federal income tax dollars go towards an elite group of bankers to pay for, solely, the interest our Congress runs up each time they borrow money from the Federal Reserve.  (quote from Virginia Gent)

"Socialism is the ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services by governmental agencies."-----what you describe above is a currently popular and incorrect definition on talk radio. I have many concerns and fears about where we are headed but is does not match the definition of socialism notwithstanding the GM & Chrysler debacle----a misguided act that will sooner or later dismantle itself.

[harry51]

I wonder if instead of eminent domain removal of residents in outlying areas of a city, the city could cede authority and allow those people to organize their own local gov't? Services like sewer and water could be bought on a contract basis using the existing facilities; law enforcement and public works departments could be created or maybe those services could be provided by the county instead of the city..........?

[rwanders]

   It seems (to me anyway) that the choice is between the usual urban renewal scheme, which assumes that the demand actually exists for new housing and commercial development, and this kind of "readjustment" of available residential and commercial space by eliminating excess units. An absence of demand in the first scenario would seem to rule out the first choice and would also appear to doom many of any "subdivided cities" to continued decline and ultimate failure. I think the second choice, while obviously causing some short term pain, would have the best chance of success and also allow for future growth as it becomes viable.

[Virginia Gent]

Does anyone think that, perhaps by doing this, they are trying to stabilize prices in the housing sector? Destroying whole blocks of abandoned houses and stuff would take some of the supply out of the "Supply & Demand" aspect of economics. Also, there has been a continuing worry about another type of development crisis brewing ... that of our commercial real estate and how it, along with housing, has been over inflated throughout the years. I've heard people say that this bubble has yet to burst and when it does, it'll make the sub-prime crisis look like a walk in the park. Perhaps doing this, it's main purpose is to try and stabilize housing prices, but also is being used as a secondary effect of trying to destroy extra commercial space to stop that bubble from popping as well.

Also, I realize that if this is the case, the destruction of property would have to be done a large scale, perhaps a larger scale than is currently being tossed around. however, this could just be the experiment to see if the idea is viable and/or to see how the American public reacts to whole city blocks being destroyed.