Nearly 40 percent of Detroit residents live below the poverty line. In many cities, poor people rent — but the home ownership rate here is high. After the 2008 housing crash, it took the city of Detroit five years to start reappraising homes — and poor homeowners like Hicks, who lives on disability, struggled to pay their taxes. Over the past decade, there have been more than 100,000 tax foreclosures in Detroit. — Marketplace
For more news from the Motor City, check out these links:
16 Comments
It's hard to believe that governments are comprised of living, breathing human beings when you read stuff like this. Kicking folks out of their homes because the city subjectively created a new value for a piece of property. This is what redistribution of wealth looks like in practice. It's never the rich losing; these homes will be bought up, torn down, and redeveloped into whatever hip, new thing that they (the rich) can squeeze the most money out of, whilst enjoying tax breaks and incentives handed out by the city to develop these areas. Isn't there something else we can do? Do these humans running things in Detroit have no vision, other than what has become the norm?
i honestly believe it's mostly an incredible level of incompetence within city govt. Most of the detroit govt. employees i've dealt with seem more concerned with paperwork than anything else.
Detroit, it seems, finds new and interesting ways to destroy it'self.
Honestly the feds should show up with moving vans and say $40k and a free move to California or Nebraska where businesses need people to work and there are enough people earning above the poverty line to fund a reasonable social safety net. Detroit may not be a lost cause but if people are being kicked to the curb and left to die in the cold by their own city government then maybe we should offer a way out.
Peter, I'm not trying to be divisive, but can you articulate your position here in contrast to the thread you started regarding the housing project in Joliet?
As a Detroit resident, this story is so idiotically simplistic. Are people being kicked out of their homes? Yes. Are there people that totally game the system? Yes. Are the city's appraisals too high? Yes, but homes have been reappraised several times in the last few years, and people are still not paying their taxes. If you own a home, should you pay your taxes? Yes. Do many Detroit homeowners skip out on paying taxes? Yes. Would occupied homes make the city better? Yes. Is a city viable where a large percentage of city homeowners flagrantly avoid paying their taxes? Probably not.
In contrast to Evergreen terrace in Joliet, where residents are in an area that is growing and is or has recently become economically viable where they are kicking residents who rent out, In Detroit they raise taxes by fudging the tax assessments and this disproportionately impacts homeowners, many on fixed incomes, who may not have the resources to appeal their assessments and or find grants or programs to help them stay in their homes. Detroit is not working to curb the tax foreclosures and evictions where Joliet is actively pushing people out and spending $15 million to do so.
Detroit is benign neglect, Joliet is modern slum clearing or more accurately racially motivated community destruction for the propose of spurring gentrification.
But the problem people have who are on any kind of social assistance is they are stuck inside their current state and city because they lose benefits if they move someplace else. This is why we need a federal relocation assistance program for the poor, and have the receiving communities chosen based on facts and economic needs instead of political boundaries that keep the poor stuck like the serfs of Czarist Russia.
Over and OUT
Peter N
while it seems like a good idea to remove the people from the problem with a Kickstarter, there are two points to consider.
1- these are still people, families, cousins, "cousins," and neighborhoods that you are proposing to separate with a fairly small amount of cash. You only need look back to Katrina to see the negative impact this type of displacement has on people, and there's significant research as far back as the 50's that established this (sorry, the name of the sociologist escapes me, hence my use of Katrini as a more recent example.
In short, if they have no where to go or want to go, you aren't helping people if you move them- you're hurting them.
2- back to your relocation funding. What happens to the abandoned properties. Over the short term neighborhoods might be mothballed, but as we are seeing in the case of Joiliet, that will change. I suspect that it would appreciate faster n Detroit. But you've moved the current owners/former owners out, leaving them with no equity, and they start from scratch again.
I'd take your relocation fund and turn it into funding to stabilize homes and neighborhoods as a long term investment to the city. Housing reimagining and not relocation.
Counter proposal- how about modifying this current rfp to include service akin sci arc (and Yale, UVa, etc) and research akin to the solar decathlon power grids (and other decentralized systems)?
Marc, the Solar Decathlon houses are not economically viable for many and the systemic and concentrated poverty will still be there once new houses are built. Some Cities are too far gone to save and it is jurisdictional boundaries that have people trapped in communities with little to no chances of economic opportunity. Detroit is and will be a failed city and remain a shadow of it'self. No rebound is possible as the fundamental infrastructure is failing. The city is in a strategic decline and the political situation will never come about where the huge amount or resources needed to reverse this trend will come about. it is cheaper to evacuate the crumbling neighborhoods and rearrange people in a small area within the city than to try and fix all of the physical and political problems in Detroit. Detroit is never going to be what it was again.
I'm more than aware that decathlon houses are not economically viable, but the decentralized grid systems that are over looked are becoming more viable, if not viable already. Generally, my comment recognizes that existing infrastructure is failing and I was trying to imply that alternatives must be identified.
"...rearrange people in a small area within the city than to try and fix all of the physical and political problems in Detroit." This I agree with, and was trying to suggest something similar. I just don't think moving communities w/o control or equity is the right path.
Mark, the re-arranging has to have the right incentives. it also is possible in Detroit to literally rearrange communities as most houses are light wood frame houses that can be placed on a truck and slowly moved to a neighborhood with viable infrastructure. New buildings and thus a reinvention of the character of a place may not be necessary and relocating buildings and the people who live in them might be more welcome than a totally new environment.
Architects and urban planners are also sometimes tone deaf to what people actually want and need. It is important to keep open as many options as possible when dealing with and trying to help people who may not have the best ability to effectively advocate for their interest. We all too often disqualify comments and concerns from people whose educational attainment is different than our own, and this is the worst form of ignorance.
Over and OUT
Peter N
You get no disagreement with me on any of that.
I'm merely suggesting that there are more things that can be done than to move a family (and possibly their home) to a new location including long term opportunity/investment. This recently released report demonstrates one of the core reasons why this is needed. It's not perfect, but it is telling.
Given that Maurice Cox is proposing zones where approvals and process (red tape and fees) are streamlined, housing families in these locations could be an opportunity to create population density to support the emerging commercial and retail businesses.
Marc and Peter, just brainstorming outloud here - how about chartered infrastructure/neighborhoods? (analogous to "charter schools"). The definition of "charter": a written grant by a country's legislative or sovereign power, by which an institution such as a company, college, or city is created and its rights and privileges defined. Proposed as similar to "charter" schools that open up in areas that have practically no tax base. Years ago while looking for vacant and abandoned property like Detroit but in Philly (Germantown and north of Northern Liberties) the kids helping me introduced me to the head of their charter school. I did not and still do not fully understand the financial process and at the time my younger brother was finishing up his Educational Doctorate with research similar, essentially told me there is great debate about "charter schools" given their somewhat privatized approach, yet government funding. Why not do same for infrastructure and allow some type of land swap prior to charter establishmen- Or charter the infrastructure appropriate for the neighborhood - perhaps on grid and of grid etc...chartered for the needa of those who remain.
You're suggesting a financial approach? I think that's part of the Cox initiative that he's trying to start up, but don't hold me to that. I think he's been looking at what Latent Design has been advocating for in Chicago, but is trying to do it on a larger (and more top down) scale.
Thanks for Cox initiative link. All I can say for now is I am aiming to get licensed in Michigan soon. That initiative is a start and will probably get abused quickly by a sly developer. A charter might limit the abuse and if started by locals better define what should happen where. Charter schools can often effect the public schools in negative financing to requiring re-assessmemts of methods and policies. Why not do that with infrastructure? Put the public agencies and utiltiies in jeopordy, this will speed things up and require more robust solutions. Think of it like a city charter from in the past - such as Savannah, GA.
The Problem with the Charter or privatization model is that is doesn't always work
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/why-detroit-is-an-education-funding-vacuum/493589/
There are reasons some services should remain public goods. Profiting off of sewers, water, street lighting, or public safety has been disastrous for many municipalities in the past.
Most famous example being the Chicago fire which got out of control because private fire brigades skipped houses and other buildings that had not paid up on their insurance. It opens the door to the mob and corruption on a massive scale. Another example was the privatization of the parking meters in Chicago, the corrupt Mayor who instigated that deal is on the company's board and is paid 250k per year for the rest of his life. With charters there is the possibility that the crumbling infrastructure will get much worse for many as the charters will likely cherry pick the most affluent and financially stable communities to serve or charge outlandish fees.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2009/11/16/privatizing-water-system-could-be-risky-move-chicago
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Water_Works_Company,_Inc.
Cities need to be held accountable and unfortunately the mechanism for that, local newspapers, is all but gone. this will lead to a boom time for local corruption and ineptitude. As a result cities will suffer.
It is your civic duty to purchase and read your local newspaper, otherwise we are all going to pay much more in the long run.
Over and OUT
Peter N
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.