Fighting the foreclosure fight -- or withdrawing
The goals include brainstorming new strategies and sharing "game-changing solutions" that can more speedily get vacant homes re-occupied.
The event -- sponsored by Living Cities, HUD and the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at the John F. Kennedy School at Harvard University -- is interesting in part because it's not simply bringing together local government administrators. Each place represented (described as "12 of the regions hit hardest by the housing crisis," from South Florida to Los Angeles) sent a team made up of nonprofits and real estate firms as well as government officials.
Detroit -- exceedingly hard-hit -- is not on the list. But leaders there are considering a doozy of a game-changer.
Razing. Razing across the board.
As the Associated Press notes:
After decades of decline that gutted many once-vibrant neighborhoods, Detroit is preparing a radical renewal effort on a scale never attempted in this country: returning a large swath of the city to fields or farmland, much like it was in the middle of the 19th century. Under plans now being refined, demolition crews would move through the most desolate and decayed areas of urban Detroit with building-chomping excavators, reducing houses to rubble.
Tearing down en masse has been suggested in Baltimore, too. Though the city's situation is not as desperate as Detroit's, it has thousands of long-vacant, abandoned houses, and streets where boarded-up properties outnumber the occupied ones.
Frequent commenter MrRational has on several occasions advocated for a tear-down approach: "There are large tracts of properties in the city described as 'homes' that have no legitimate reason to remain standing," he wrote on this post in September. "The bureaucratic inertia and legalities which allow this can't continue to be tolerated."
Should Baltimore follow Detroit's proposed example? Or is that medicine worse than the disease?
(Tip of the hat to colleague -- and Consuming Interests blogger -- Liz Kay, who thought this would make for an interesting discussion.)Categories: The economy, The foreclosure mess
Sign up for the At Home newsletter 
Comments
We need to be careful not to focus only on neighborhoods that are already in some phase of revitalizing. Putting all the emphasis on stronger, rebounding neighborhoods may perpetuate the blight and challenges of abandoned neighborhoods. There needs to be a both "stabilization" and revitalization.
Robert J. Strupp
Director of Research and Policy
Community Law Center
Posted by: RobertJStrupp | March 14, 2010 12:00 PM
Definitely tear it down, but allow private investors to foot the bill so it won't cost the city or state a dime. Government spending is full of waste, fraud, and corruption. Let private investors build it and take care of business. Sure, you can stabilize and revitalize the abandoned neighborhoods. But, it should not be on the taxpayer's dime.
Posted by: Frank Rizzo | March 14, 2010 6:08 PM
We are very much in favor of making Baltimore a slightly smaller city. Some of the abandoned neighborhoods will never rebound, and would be cost prohibitive to revitalize.
Shrinking a city does have some benefits -- more efficient transit/transportation, less infrastructure repairs and maintenance (and less of a burden on our infrastructure), costs for police and fire/EMS go down, and it's beneficial to the environment.
However, we do agree with Mr. Strupp's post above, that we should be careful to not impede the progress of some of our less-stable, rebounding neigborhoods.
Accomplishing this without a land bank authority is going to be a difficult challenge.
Posted by: Baltimore Slumlord Watch | March 17, 2010 1:56 PM