Mayor Embraces Shrinking Detroit

[Ravine]

Bing, with this idea, has demonstrated that he is a fuckin' idiot, but Detroiters "asked for it."

Maybe-- one day-- perhaps-- Detroiters will figure out that electing sports stars, television personalities, singers, jackasses who attach "Reverend" to their names, and people whose names we recognize even though we know nothing about them is a hideously ignorant way of exercising their right to vote, but that day doesn't appear to be anywhere near close enough to rescue this city from its worst enemy: its own citizenry.

[royce]

Bing, with this idea, has demonstrated that he is a fuckin' idiot, but Detroiters "asked for it."

Maybe-- one day-- perhaps-- Detroiters will figure out that electing sports stars, television personalities, singers, jackasses who attach "Reverend" to their names, and people whose names we recognize even though we know nothing about them is a hideously ignorant way of exercising their right to vote, but that day doesn't appear to be anywhere near close enough to rescue this city from its worst enemy: its own citizenry.

Well, Ravine, do you have a better idea? On second thought, do you have an idea? Ok, you disagree with this idea, but at least have the guts to offer something in its place. Just complaining that you don't like the idea is such a waste of time.

Personally, I think it is the only viable idea that will make Detroit more viable. How to go about moving people from the depopulated areas is the tricky part. The city really can't use eminent domain anymore so that't out. My suggestion would be to give people a time table to move. The city would give residents in the targeted areas a year to move, working with them to move into homes in more populated areas. For those who choose not to leave, the city would cut off all city services including street lighting. The city would take them off the property tax rolls and tell them that they can stay but that they would have to fend for themselves. Without fire, police, EMS, garbage and lighting services, many of those who choose to remain would eventually move. Once all are gone, the city could baraccade the streets and tear down the remaining homes.

Of course this plan will upset long term residents who don't want to leave their homes. However, people, because of natural disasters, have left their homes before. What Detroit is experiencing today is equivalent to a nature disaster. To recover from it, a redistribution of the population is a must. To do nothing will doom all residents to fewer city services and quality of life.

[stasu1213]

[quote=royce;124743]Well, Ravine, do you have a better idea? On second thought, do you have an idea? Ok, you disagree with this idea, but at least have the guts to offer something in its place. Just complaining that you don't like the idea is such a waste of time.

Personally, I think it is the only viable idea that will make Detroit more viable. How to go about moving people from the depopulated areas is the tricky part. The city really can't use eminent domain anymore so that't out. My suggestion would be to give people a time table to move. The city would give residents in the targeted areas a year to move, working with them to move into homes in more populated areas. For those who choose not to leave, the city would cut off all city services including street lighting. The city would take them off the property tax rolls and tell them that they can stay but that they would have to fend for themselves. Without fire, police, EMS, garbage and lighting services, many of those who choose to remain would eventually move. Once all are gone, the city could baraccade the streets and tear down the remaining homes.

Of course this plan will upset long term residents who don't want to leave their homes. However, people, because of natural disasters, have left their homes before. What Detroit is experiencing today is equivalent to a nature disaster. To recover from it, a redistribution of the population is a must. To do nothing will doom all residents to fewer city services and quality of life.[/quote I think that the people who are being forced out the home that they owned not rented should be given a home in another part of the city that is vacant. The home should be not much greater value than the home the owner was forced out of. I say NOT MUCH GREATER VALUE but could a little more of a value. The only thing that the homeowner would be responsible for is the taxes, insurance and so and so. If the homeowner was still paying on the home he/she was forced out of; the note of the home that is given to that homeowner should be the same amount as the note the homeowner was paying. I wouldnt be surprise that the empty land that will be there after the dwellings are removed will be used by corporations to build on. Detroit might even have a Birch Run type outlet in the middle of the city in an area that was once semipopulated with residents. I got the feeling that the Detroit City Airport will take up most of the land east of Gratioit and Conners. The airport would be as be as metro