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.

All you must do to sell something is label it as Green. It's a crazy fad.

I don't know who here actually read the article, but here are a couple of points.
*The plan was the idea of Mr Kildee, treasurer of the county where Flint is. As treasurer, he no doubt came up with it as a way to cut their costs. It was not a plan by Obama to reduce housing supply and boost home prices.
*As for letting homeless live there, there simply are not enough people to fill those houses, homeless or not (at least in the Flint situation).

The federal government is looking to expand it to 50 cities, mostly in the rust belt.
It seems to me like a plan that could be implemented well in some cases.
Like you guys, I'm not in favor of razing good homes or razing any homes in an effort to cut down on supply. I could see how this idea could be adopted/misused for that purpose.

The article was pretty well lacking in details, but it doesn't seem like something to roundly condemn.