patrick.net

So, uh, it's better to bulldoze housing than to let homeless people live in it for free?

Almost like the end of the gold rush mining days where towns died a slow death and where you can still get a home for around 20 or 30 grand since they never recovered but who wants to live there?
How will Detroit ever compete with 25 cent per hour Chinese labor manufacturing automobiles?

It is an obscene act to bulldoze housing.

People came up with all kinds of arguments that this was good/necessary/whatever last time we discussed this. You will not get me to agree.

So, cities will return the bulldozed neighborhoods to nature so that they can eventually sell the property to developers? We know that will happen.

I don't understand how bulldozing housing will change the unemployment rate, or the number of law enforcement personnel necessary. I do believe in bulldozing abandoned housing that's falling down and dangerous, but not the city purchasing these places and offering homes in more affluent areas to the owners. This plan is nuts.

This is another "cash for clunkers" idea. Lets get et rid of the potential inventory, to drive prices up and keep Americans in debt slavery.

Change?

On the other hand, the population of Flint shrank from 194,000 to 124,000 from 1970 to 2000. That leaves every 3rd house or so vacant. How are they supposed to pay for street mainenance, sewage, garbage pickup, etc.? They don't exactly have good Jobs either.

On the other hand, the population of Flint shrank from 194,000 to 124,000 from 1970 to 2000. That leaves every 3rd house or so vacant. How are they supposed to pay for street mainenance, sewage, garbage pickup, etc.? They don’t exactly have good Jobs either.

Good point. But I don't think that the city razing homes is the answer. I don't know what is.

>> This is another “cash for clunkers” idea

Yes, except they are not necessarily clunkers and we are not getting newer, greener houses in return.