patrick.net

elliemae:

I have no idea whether this is possible. I would think the affected region would have a vote on whether they would agree to secede.

There must be some level of standardization in city charters?

I would hope so. All I know is that I pay about $400/year less in taxes than the next town, and they have no better public services than my area.

justme:

Cities can incorporate areas whenever they want, regardless of the resident’s wishes. Can they de-incorporate an area the same way?

I guess they could but unincorporated areas are the domain of the county and so would have to be supported by them. My guess is the county is broke too. So police, fire, and roads would come from the county. What about utilities? From my experience people in unincorporated areas buy water and power from the neighboring town and run septic and propane or dig a well. But if the town can't afford to service them now, how are they going to do it with even less revenue?

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

I'm a pretty liberal person but I think article has a great idea. Sure, we have homeless people that could use the shelter. But the problem is that the cities can't afford to service these homes. What happens when the sewer breaks down? Roads? Police? Fire? Schools? These areas would become crime-infested unsanitary death traps which would not solve the problem which is getting these people into safe stable homes with good schools to break the cycle of poverty.

I think the best way to somewhat see this might be what happened after Katrina. I'm not pro police in many things but I have to sympathize with them here. Just think of some of the logistics. If no gas stations are around do you bother making arrests knowing you might run out of gas and be stuck with a criminal? If there's a house on fire that surrounded by water how do you know there isn't anyone in there...say no one answers the phone...do you bother to send the fire dept by air and put it out and then ems?

Going a bit beyond katrina look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_Cold_Storage_Warehouse_fire this is why I think that most abandoned buildings need to be torn down. It can become a magnet for homeless people (not putting down on the homeless) but all it takes is an accident to make things spiral out of control.

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

Unfortantely a good number of homeless are hooked on drugs. These houses will become crack houses, it's not like saving them for the homeless will encourge the people moving into them to take care of the properties.

I can understand part of the logic there. You raze all the houses on XYZ Street, cut off all the utilities and demolish the street itself, police will not have to patrol there, garbage collectors will not have to pick up garabe there, etc. Thereby saving the city money in the long run. But if the police do not go there, does it not become a lawless area? Any vacant area, close to a major city, it going to attact homeless people, they will build shelters out of scraps of wood and make a Hovertown there. Anyone who thinks the area is going to go back to nature so deer and the bunny rabbits can live there is de-illusional. Why not just abandon that part of town without knocking everything down, it would be a lot cheaper. You could put up signs, "Now entering the restricted zone, proceed at own risk!"

Not to anyone in particular:

Seriously, I think there is waaaaay to much hysteria about some empty houses.

For chrissakes, the incremental cost of driving past that house in a garbage truck or a police car is very minimal.
Just leave them alone, already, or let people homestead them (get them for free, essentially). This country was built on homesteading. Give people a chance. Jeez.

oh god...this is just like FDR's plan to burn crops and slaughter livestock while Americans were starving. I really don't advocate the welfare state but if you are going to refuse to allow buyers to buy the homes at low prices, then just friggin give them away to the poor. Don't bulldoze them. They are destroying what little wealth the housing bubble actually produced.

A big amen to that. Oakman. This stuff is making me religious.

what a bunch of over-reacting to whats been called 'urban blight' for decades.
there is more crap housing than there are inhabitants for such.
if its such desirable RE why havent you bought any of it at such cheap prices...

urban areas sprawled outwards to suburban areas, leaving rings of empty old broken bldgs, both comm and res, within the inner rings.
you can see this most anywhere...worse in the west due to such new 'booming' but certainly in the east due to age, simply.

in the 80's they did much the same thing in many an area.
...cleaned it off the map and rebuilt.
they called them 'developers'.
wallst types....

at some point someone has to clean up the crap they leave behind.

I haven't bought any because it's NOT for sale. Not all of this is even in urban areas. There was a man in my town in his 80's. Decades ago the house looked fine...then gradually the children left...then gradually the number cars in the yard added up (no fence) then some boards went up on the windows. Eventually they found that there was significant sewerage problems and the place was found unfit to live. It took a long time for this to happen. Now there's a new house and new people there.

There are plenty of cases of blight but until they break a law then there's nothing you can do about it.

Bap33's post on June 13th, 2009 at 3:48 pm is classic. I nominate that "Best of..." ala Craigslist fame.