Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Intriguing Plan in Michael Moore's Home Town: Bulldoze the Ghost 'Burbs, Return Them to Nature

By Tom Leonard, The Telegraph (UK). Posted June 13, 2009.


Concept of razing post-industrial "rust belt" empty neighborhoods draws interest in Detroit, Philadelphia, Baltimore and other cities.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The government looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, Michigan, one of the poorest US cities, which involves razing entire districts and returning the land to nature.

Local politicians believe the city must contract by as much as 40 percent, concentrating the dwindling population and local services into a more viable area.

The radical experiment is the brainchild of Dan Kildee, treasurer of Genesee County, which includes Flint.

Having outlined his strategy to Barack Obama during the election campaign, Mr Kildee has now been approached by the US government and a group of charities who want him to apply what he has learnt to the rest of the country.

Mr Kildee said he will concentrate on 50 cities, identified in a recent study by the Brookings Institution, an influential Washington think-tank, as potentially needing to shrink substantially to cope with their declining fortunes.

Most are former industrial cities in the "rust belt" of America's Mid-West and North East. They include Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Memphis.

In Detroit, shattered by the woes of the US car industry, there are already plans to split it into a collection of small urban centres separated from each other by countryside.

"The real question is not whether these cities shrink – we're all shrinking – but whether we let it happen in a destructive or sustainable way," said Mr Kildee. "Decline is a fact of life in Flint. Resisting it is like resisting gravity."

Karina Pallagst, director of the Shrinking Cities in a Global Perspective programme at the University of California, Berkeley, said there was "both a cultural and political taboo" about admitting decline in America.

"Places like Flint have hit rock bottom. They're at the point where it's better to start knocking a lot of buildings down," she said.

Flint, sixty miles north of Detroit, was the original home of General Motors. The car giant once employed 79,000 local people but that figure has shrunk to around 8,000.

Unemployment is now approaching 20 per cent and the total population has almost halved to 110,000.

The exodus – particularly of young people – coupled with the consequent collapse in property prices, has left street after street in sections of the city almost entirely abandoned.

In the city centre, the once grand Durant Hotel – named after William Durant, GM's founder – is a symbol of the city's decline, said Mr Kildee. The large building has been empty since 1973, roughly when Flint's decline began.

Regarded as a model city in the motor industry's boom years, Flint may once again be emulated, though for very different reasons.

But Mr Kildee, who has lived there nearly all his life, said he had first to overcome a deeply ingrained American cultural mindset that "big is good" and that cities should sprawl – Flint covers 34 square miles.

He said: "The obsession with growth is sadly a very American thing. Across the US, there's an assumption that all development is good, that if communities are growing they are successful. If they're shrinking, they're failing."

But some Flint dustcarts are collecting just one rubbish bag a week, roads are decaying, police are very understaffed and there were simply too few people to pay for services, he said.

If the city didn't downsize it will eventually go bankrupt, he added.

Flint's recovery efforts have been helped by a new state law passed a few years ago which allowed local governments to buy up empty properties very cheaply.

They could then knock them down or sell them on to owners who will occupy them. The city wants to specialise in health and education services, both areas which cannot easily be relocated abroad.

The local authority has restored the city's attractive but formerly deserted centre but has pulled down 1,100 abandoned homes in outlying areas.

Mr Kildee estimated another 3,000 needed to be demolished, although the city boundaries will remain the same.

Already, some streets peter out into woods or meadows, no trace remaining of the homes that once stood there.

Choosing which areas to knock down will be delicate but many of them were already obvious, he said.

The city is buying up houses in more affluent areas to offer people in neighbourhoods it wants to demolish. Nobody will be forced to move, said Mr Kildee.

"Much of the land will be given back to nature. People will enjoy living near a forest or meadow," he said.

Mr Kildee acknowledged that some fellow Americans considered his solution "defeatist" but he insisted it was "no more defeatist than pruning an overgrown tree so it can bear fruit again."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: housing, subprime, homes, financial crisis, flint, bulldoze

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Refreshing Idea
Posted by: MIST on Jun 14, 2009 2:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally some sense creeps into this country's mindless, never-ending expansion myth. Detroit may not be ready for it yet, but Flint being smaller can be more readily transformed and can provide a good example that others can follow. As the economy unravels, poor urbanites will need additional land to grow some of their food in large gardens. Winter heating can be supplemented by burning newly forested or backyard trees and fast-growing hemp. This reforestation of urban areas is novel and not at first what comes to mind by the 'back to the earth' generation. But with homes in Detroit selling for less than $5,000 in some instances, brave small groups of pioneers will stake their claims and eventually revitalize ghost towns in the making. But rather than bulldoze homes, what about hauling them out to the rural farmlands where someday some of our population will move back to? Lower density lifestyles from yesteryear will make a comeback as our population thins, and as sustainable living becomes paramount.



I'll be watching.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Electrify the rails, built better infrastructures
Posted by: weathered on Jun 14, 2009 4:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
embark on new sources of energy and efficiencies that engage our hands & minds in hopeful, esteemable challenges?

No, right now we're too busy redistributing wealth, torturing a new enemy we never had before and Lying to ourselves about the indelible fallout from a stolen election in 2000, 9/11, Irag/Afgn theft and Likud in the Oval office.
'by deceit we wage war' No kidding.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why we need Light rail NOW
Posted by: Purple Girl on Jun 14, 2009 5:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Living outside Flint (and previously Detroit) is like living next to Ghosttowns.I'm all for knocking down the homes and buildings which are literally melting into the ground anyway.
But what must accompany this means to get people who live in the outlying communities ways to access jobs throughout the area.
It's not just be the reliance of Auto to creat a manufacutring base which has killed MI- it has been the refusal to build mass public transit for decades. Had our citizens had access to a light rail system, they could have remained in these cities and still held jobs in the growing suburban areas. Instead they left the city dwellers marooned. Only solution was to get the hell off the 'island'.
The antiquated Urban design itself creates numerous psychological as well as sociological problems. Tests on various species has proven that limited space has serious mental and communal consequences. Much of this research is Decades old- but no one -esp Gov't officials getting their pockets lined- have acted on this wealth of evidential research that we are Creating urban crime and poverty.
Instead of making urban living a choice, we have made them unfenced prisons. Free the people and give them the ability to truely choose where they want to live by giving them access to a vast public transit system.
Beyond this is the opprtunity to reignite the factories and industries by producing the components of a rail/bus system. Not to mention the environmental benefits. It set my hair on fire when that alcoholic BONER from OH couldn't comprehend how light rail manufactering would help the Rust Belt- Steel, Plastics, Fabrics, electronics, tool & die...ASSEMBLY!!!! Sound familiar you Pickled Fuck?!? Can't ya just smell the 12 yr old Scotch coming off him through the TV?
Relying on Cars has killed this state, The Region, in more ways than one!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Why Live in Flint? Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
Finally - a sensible idea
Posted by: progressive-life on Jun 14, 2009 5:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lets hope the reversal of the american mindset of more is better filters over into other areas - foreign deployment of troops, national debt and size of our government for examples!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've Been Suggesting This...
Posted by: RoffleTheWaffle on Jun 14, 2009 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... for a while.

This needs to happen where I live. Here in east-central Indiana, General Motors has been cutting off our fingers for years. We used to have over a dozen factories in my town which supplied parts for the auto plants. After this year, we will officially have zero. Blighted neighborhoods that cover up to a third of the city attract squatters and breed crime, and the city simply can't afford to operate at the level it has previously. The school system, road department, and police department are already imploding, and attempts at bringing new jobs in are slow going.

It won't matter how many jobs we bring in if nobody wants to live here in my town, though. I live in one of the few remaining good neighborhoods. Just a block over, solid blight. Decaying houses swarm with insects and have their doors and windows forced open. Siding is regularly stolen from vacant homes, making them look that much worse. While houses in my neighborhood have no trouble changing hands and attract fairly decent tenants, nobody wants to move into a dead neighborhood, especially when most of the properties have been rendered uninhabitable by decay. Even if we get new factories here - which we may before long - people would rather move out of town than live in what's described as 'one of the trashiest cities in the state'.

You could knock down entire city blocks here and nobody would miss them. The vacated property could be rebuilt on if and when we can attract anyone to it. Until then, having a rotting, collapsing house sitting on the lot is worse than nothing at all. I'm excited to see how this program turns out, and if it's successful, I might see if I can't bring it to the city's attention.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

flint
Posted by: heide on Jun 14, 2009 6:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i think its a good idea too,,give mother earth back some of what weve stolen from her,,, but i saw nothing in this article that says .. what is going to happen to all the stuff the houses were made out of
any of the wood ect going to be recycled??or just hauled to a dump????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: flint Posted by: MyLeftFoot
» RE: flint Posted by: RoffleTheWaffle
» RE: Flint Posted by: badkitty
Since when is showing intelligence and foresight "defeatist"??
Posted by: hagwind on Jun 14, 2009 6:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bravo to Mr. Kildee and everyone working along these lines. And these are some of the most interesting and constructive comments I've read on AlterNet recently. I guess the wingnuts don't want to read about making cities livable. It takes too much work, and hot air won't get you anywhere.

Jane Jacobs, author of The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961) and one of the greatest grassroots thinkers North America ever produced, would be proud.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And what about the homeless?
Posted by: Pissed Off Woman on Jun 14, 2009 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm disgusted by this article and the comments on it. I say, give those houses over to the squatters. Pretty forests and meadows will increase the property values of those who've survived or even managed to profit from the economic downturn, but what about those who haven't? The homeless need homes. The shelter system is close to worthless--homeless shelters are hotbeds of drugs and violence. In New York City, where I live, there is a group called Picture the Homeless, run by homeless and formerly homeless people seeking to end this crisis once and for all. They have already done a tally of all the abandoned properties in Manhattan, which are in themselves enough to house everyone currently in the city's shelters, and are petitioning the city to do a tally of the ones in the other boroughs. This crisis could be a real opportunity to end homelessness if that's what the cities want--and committed squatters can revitalize neighborhoods, as they've done on Manhattan's Lower East Side--the question is, do the cities want it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: And what about the homeless? Posted by: RoffleTheWaffle
» RE: And what about the homeless? Posted by: RoffleTheWaffle
» You'd be astonished Posted by: pomes
» RE: You'd be astonished Posted by: RoffleTheWaffle
Consider this, but with care
Posted by: LeonBNJ on Jun 14, 2009 7:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The destruction of old and abondened homes in places like Flint should be done with concern for the enviroment. Some homes should be continued to be occupied as they were properly maintined and badly needed by homeless and those of limited incomes. Many of these homes may not be energy efficent and difficult to make so. When homes are torn down, don't just dump the remains into landfills. Many 20th Century homes have leaded paint all over and inside them, asbestos containing flooring, insulating and roof and outside shingles. Encourge 'green belts' for many urban and suburban areas with natural state parks, woods and organic farming as seen in various cities in Europe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Too many of you sheeple believe that human beings are "bad" & wilderness is good!
Posted by: JohnTruth2001 on Jun 14, 2009 9:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can all live in harmony with nature!

There are abundant resources on this planet for EVERYONE to have clean water, food, shelter, decent jobs, medical care, etc.!!!

Severely corrupt governments + corporations are why so many people are suffering!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New Parks and better Urban Planning
Posted by: beeden on Jun 14, 2009 11:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a means to redress the transport issues caused by current urban sprawl policies, this may help, by compacting a city's population density to an area able to be efficiently resourced in public transport, energy, housing and water resources. With such economic advantages, schools and hospitals can be better funded as well.
Rather than bulldoze these areas, sites should be gleaned of reusable materials and where possible utilised to renovate and upgrade residences closer to/within the city for homeless people. Trees and some plants already established in these areas should be protected, whilst other areas could become useful again for agricultural purposes.
Proper deconstructon of these areas to save materials and in some cases wholesale house removal, alongside caching of resources would provide valuable employment opportunities. They would also ensure that no toxic remainders are left in place to create future problems.
With established trees remaining and new plantings of area specific species, parklands could provide wildlife homes and the possibility of nature reserves for camping and other activities, a direct train/tram line (and bike paths) to the area would allow town residents non-car access to walking trails within the new park precincts. Mixed timber plantations on the perimeters would allow for different value added industries to set-up and offset monocultural plantation problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People need work, jobs, income.
Posted by: Sojourner on Jun 14, 2009 12:55 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't understand the inability to see the connection between jobs and shelter. Where there is work, people can get along in shared space to begin with. No, work and buildings are just structures.

Capitalism makes more money from a few people pushing pencils. They hire pirates to steal from others. So long as their bottom line justifies their existence, other people can die off--no matter. "Socialism" means jobs, work, income.

Sure, our labor supply is so overgrown we can no longer put it to use in factories. So pay attention to human neglect, such as lousy education, violent neighborhoods, poor public health. That's where we do not have enough people, because "public" has been scorned for the last 30 years. Reagan taught Americans to thumb our noses at public service.

As you sow, so shall you reap.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BURY ALL THE EVIDENCE
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 14, 2009 1:52 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How convenient! What about the people who used to live in these houses? I guess everything is disposable. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good article--decentralization is the answer.
Posted by: eidolon on Jun 14, 2009 5:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The expanses of urban decay in our nation should be reappropriated for sustainable, organic agriculture. This way we can take the food supply back from centralized corporate power (Monsanto). Localized agriculture would spur vast job creation and give birth to vital, self-sustaining communities in areas that are currently industrial wastelands.

Furthermore, the transnational network of food distribution we have in our country is totally illogical and unsustainable. Decentralized agriculture would reduce fuel consumption and the proliferation of pesticides, irradiation, genetic modification (patent tyranny), and other harmful technologies--not to mention foodborne illnesses.

Of course, a self-sustaining populace is a grave threat to the established power structure and these kind of reforms will not come without furious opposition. However, one can contribute towards smaller reform in their own way by supporting existing local food infrastructure. If you can, shop at farmers' markets and engage the vendors in discussions about organic and sustainable agricultural practices. I believe this is one of the best things a person can do to support the livelihood of their community.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh Right...
Posted by: itsthemedication on Jun 14, 2009 6:15 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh come on now. Do you think for an instant that this land will stay undeveloped. This scheme has been played over and over again. The developers get the city, ie. the taxpayers, to demolish these areas, and then they sit back and wait and then pounce on the land when economic times are good and make a killing. Does the taxpayer get his money back? No. Does the taxpayer get a park? No. The taxpayer is the patsy in this deal. $1 deeds for homeowners wiling to fix the house is a better idea. Lord knows there are a lot of people out there that have lost their homes and need a new start.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oh Right... Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Oh Right... Posted by: MIST
MI is a poorhouse state. Not all states will approve of bulldozing houses like that.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 14, 2009 8:11 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Doing that in states such as VA where I live will only create more homeless people exponentially. Flint, MI has been dying off for years already so no surprise there. Let's be more constructive, not destructive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Knocking Down Buildings is Crazy; Instead People Need Jobs
Posted by: RobWheeler on Jun 15, 2009 11:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this idea of knocking down buildings is crazy. People have to live somewhere and each building knocked down has to be replaced by a new one built somewhere else. What is needed is a community planning process and federal support to ensure that there are sufficient jobs for all of the people living in the area, preferably jobs that lead to creating a more sustainable future.

This whole recession is crazy. There are millions of things that need to be done to create a more sustainable country and future and we ought to be investing in them rather than in $700 billion for military spending. Wake up America, lets invest constructively in our future.

Rob Wheeler

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

After reading the pro and con
Posted by: abstractedaway on Jun 16, 2009 2:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that some selective demolition could well be in order.

Homes that can still pass inspection could be offered to homeless folk, a kind of new homesteading act. However, materials from demolished homes can be recycled. Demolition is not destruction. It could reclaim materials that will rot otherwise.

That is a chance to revise some poor zoning and urban planning. It's also a job market for the locals to demolish some places, remodel others, and consider rebuilding other places green.

A fresh design could make a lot of difference. Orienting a building properly southward for its window exposure can knock 25% off of its heating and cooling costs, no other changes made. Designing a more walkable neighborhood could make for an optimistically green future. This is Flint's chance to undo car-centric suburban sprawl.

I think the idea has potential.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Create jobs and green space
Posted by: overseas on Jun 16, 2009 5:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IDEA: Would you folks whining about job creation vs reclaiming land from these collapsing 'burbs and towns swallow this good idea better if UNEMPLOYED were employed to do the huge work of salvaging, disposing and re-greening of these places? And then working on light rail system with some of the old assemply lines and technology? C'mon be CREATIVE. There has to be something we can do with Michigan and other places that have lost so much from our unsustainble lives. WHy is there not a CAR or GAS tax that helps fund this????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The destructive locusts didn't get the last laugh
Posted by: xvictor on Jun 16, 2009 6:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems just a few short years ago, i had witnessed pristine virgin woodland tracts that were bulldozed to make way for ever more strip malls, parking lots, and expensive condos. There were already large scale shopping developments nearby so it made no sense.

The majority of those shiny new developments had gone bust recently. I sincerely hope the investors, developers, and real estate concerns lost a lot of unrecoverable money. Amen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Past due.....
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Jun 16, 2009 7:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a refreshing idea. With all of the states suffering from some blight in areas this is an idea whose time is now! Why do we continue buying into the fallacy that we must expand! More isn't necessarily better, it's just more, and if is not serving the "good of the many" what good is it really!

We really need to shift our thinking, from consumerism, expansion, and individualism to us, we, ours, society! No matter your religion, or ethnicity we all want the same things namely: life, liberty, to raise our children, provide for our families, and lead full and productive lives. None of that requires massive consumerism nor massive expansionism both of which are encouraged by the corporate oligarchy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Past due..... Posted by: JourneyHome
Great!
Posted by: Archie1954 on Jun 16, 2009 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a fantastic idea, one whose time has come. It would change the face of America for the better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Leave Michigan to ROT IN HELL already. Come on over to TEXAS for a change !
Posted by: John More on Jun 16, 2009 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lots of sunshine, an economic boom, and more room for affordable housing. MI is a wasteland of corrupt pols, failing auto giants, greedy folks killing the labor unions, etc ... Plus it's too cold out there. TEXAS RULZ ! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWW !!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great Idea
Posted by: Gravitas on Jun 16, 2009 9:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More wilderness, less home = GOOD! If only we could work on reducing the population and expanding this to more cities.

p.s. It is a shame that some of the land couldn't be used for orchards instead of just wilderness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Great Idea Posted by: WYGunston
» RE: Great Idea Posted by: MyLeftFoot
Do Not Touch Philly or Bmore
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on Jun 16, 2009 9:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't (Bleeping) Touch Philadelphia or Baltimore, before you wake up and poof that place will look it will be like every other cookie cutter city in America!

I'll take a 19th century Row House any day than some cookie cutter cud-er-sac. The other cities, well dude its Flint Michigan, who really want to live there? Gary Indiana is worse.

Hoosier Lotto: get Three "US Steel's" and win: 76% of the City of Gary... Yearly Propriety Taxes do apply if you just give up and abandon the place for Arizona ha ha!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Give The Homeless, Illegals a hammer Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
Germs in a jar
Posted by: willymack on Jun 16, 2009 10:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a jar and start with one bacterium. That bacterium divides into two every minute, and so on. It takes one hour to fill the jar with bacteria. How long will it take to half-fill it? The answer, of course is fifty nine minutes. That's the nature of exponential population growth.
The Flint plan, while laudable, will be meaningless without a concurrent decrease or cessation of our population growth.
I can see in my mind's eye what the Flint and Detroit areas must have looked like before they were ruined by "human activity". If the Upper Penninsula is any indication, they must have been beautiful, indeed.
Let's face it folks, NOTHING we humans can build can hold a candle to the extraordinary beauty of Nature.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gimmie shelter
Posted by: gimmie shelter on Jun 16, 2009 12:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These homes should be dismantled and the materials should be used to build new energy efficient(solar, geothermal and well insulated) and affordable(sold or given away) homes in areas closer to the center. It would put people to work, save the environment and give low cost shelter to those who want them.
If houses like this became available many would want to move out of expensive to run homes into easy to run homes. Just an idea.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

YES FINALLY
Posted by: JourneyHome on Jun 16, 2009 1:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's about time someone started this idea - it's been around for a long time - tear down blight return it to nature and let there be urban gardens for inner city communities - otherwise you have rows and rows of abandon houses and they make a great cover for crime...now lets treat our drug addicts instead of incarcerating them and step up education - maybe we can might actually turn into yes we can after all - bring on the hope I'm all for it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Amen to that
Posted by: JourneyHome on Jun 16, 2009 1:41 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Spirit Girl you rock!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How about building hemp homes in MI for a change?
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Jun 16, 2009 1:51 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've heard all about hemp homes and it looks promising. From replacing wood to finding its way in paint, industrial hemp has its uses in home manufacturing. Except for a the clowns that keep sucking up to the reefer madness propaganda, it's hard to resist the idea of a hemp home once you find out how economically sustaining and truly eco-friendly it is. Michigan needs to seriously improve its lot. Throw away those auto giants and poisoned buildings and let's rebuild anew. While Ron Paul's Hemp Farming Act may have the same chances of passing as Single Payer Health Care, let's not give up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» single payer slam Posted by: BlueBerry PickN
Brilliant
Posted by: Jeanne on Jun 16, 2009 7:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a brilliant scheme. There is so much to be gained by returning acreage to natural environment. Green space will give back oxygen and pollution fighting biological processes, and humans won't have to go through the expense of maintaining streets, buildings, and other infrastructure that no one is using.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Live In Flint, Michigan
Posted by: gregoireb on Jun 17, 2009 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And I see the sense in this plan. There are literally blocks on the north and east sides of Flint where there are no occupied homes. The homes that are still standing are rotting away with collapsing roofs and water filled basements.

Or you'll see a city block with empty, crumbling homes and lots of trash and one or two occupied homes out of the 15 or so homes that used to be there.

Flint has changed greatly since my childhood. It's currently a dying town in need of massive change.

Would the greenspace idea improve things? I don't know, but it can't make things any worse than they are now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Return this land to AGRICULTURE!
Posted by: -matti on Jun 17, 2009 12:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Farms divided into small feilds seperated by hedgerows, creek beds and other "wildlife corridors" for small critters, and interspersed with forest and pasture would be far superior to "green belts" or the kind of recovery forest and grassland that would result from merely "giving" this land "back to nature".

People! We need to get the "pristine wilderness" idea OUT of our heads! Crop cultivation and animal raising, if practiced correctly, can create a landscape with superior biodiversity and resilency than would result from leaving the land to "nature". The kind of forest that will grow in the abandoned house lots of Flint will only vaguely resemble the forest that was there before. This is because that previous forest was not "wilderness" but a carefully and regularly cultivated area of silviculture -tree farming for food and other resources.

Don't know how you'd enforce the kind of land-use policies you would need to do this right in MI, but there must be a way. Done properly, it could impeed future "redevelopment" back into unsustainable systems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Doze?
Posted by: YogiBear on Jun 17, 2009 7:21 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They should deconstruct, not destroy. Bulldozing is environmentally unconcious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IF THE RICH AREN'T ASSHOLES: 'tear 'em down! leave the homeless to wander
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Jun 19, 2009 6:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
then they start with the freaking 'vagrancy' laws.

if the Rich can't get the price they WANT

they'll get the State to buy them & tear them down...

& write it off as vast expensing ... so the profit they want, can be protected by short-term writeoffs

probably to be 'redeveloped' at a later date, with more government 'exceptions' in their agreements... few safety codes, or a tax lowering status, or a few passes on their requirements for development or their liquidity analysis... blah blah blah

they'll leave the citizens to be homeless rather than build affordable housing.

& our corrupt governments will help them do it, too!
look at the desperate & magnificent struggle for human & civil rights that occurs around the World

while we stand by & let ourselves slip into a shared desperation under the thumbs of folks who really think of our communities as 'market opportunities', 'economies', legal expenses, or 'human resources'

perspective, people.


Perspective.

The Jeff Farias Show: streams FREE & LIVE Mon-Fri, 6-9pmEDT

FREE podcast
"... tolerance of intolerance is cowardice..." ~ Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
"Violence can only be concealed by a Lie, & the Lie can only be maintained by Violence." ... "Any man, who has once proclaimed Violence as his Method, is inevitably forced to take the Lie as his Principle" – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let 'em stand
Posted by: FreeAmerica on Jun 19, 2009 9:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I say let these blighted neighborhoods stand as a trophy to two generations of successful democratic rule.

These areas were once prosperous through the rigors of capitalism and industry. After a couple of generations of state and local liberal rule, greedy unions, excessive enviro and government regulations, and NAFTA, all of the jobs and prosperity have moved to third world countries where they don't have such prosperity killing things.

Liberalism and unions killed Michigan, and until we can figure out that capitalism built the prosperity and democrat socialism tore it down, we are going to make (are making) city after city into soviet style decay. There are a lot of similar lib success stories.. California, Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, Gary, DC. Now it is going nationwide under obama, pelosi and reed.

As far as recycling the houses, you should have sent them to China and Japan along with the jobs and prosperity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Let 'em stand Posted by: gimmie shelter
United Nations agenda for the 21st. Century
Posted by: kozis on Jun 22, 2009 3:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the "United Nations agenda for the 21st. Century" or agenda 21 for short.

Agenda 21 is a 40 chapter document to create a one world government. The U.S.A section of the document details a "wildlands plan" to shut down all national, state and local parks. People will be prohibited from these lands in the name of "protecting the enviroment".

Create "human zones" where people are alowed to live, which is represented by black dots on a map of this new America. Cities will be bulldozed and rebuild as green eco friendly cities with smart grid technology.

George Bush Sr. made this law with an executive order signed back in 1992. President Obama has expressed our support for the U.N.'s agenda for the 21st. Century.

Families are declared "unsustainable" and therefore illegal, property is "unsustainable" and therefore illegal, etc.

Agenda 21- Sustainable Development
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJp0P6eggXU

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about jobs?
Posted by: greenman on Jun 23, 2009 5:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, folks, in the rush to criticize tearing down derelict houses instead of giving them to the homeless, the critics seem to have forgotten that people need to have something to do. There aren't any jobs in these cities, remember? So how are the formerly homeless folks, many of whom are not prime candidates for the job market in the first place, supposed to support themselves and to keep their houses from going to wrack and ruin? The idea is well-meaning but doesn't seem to be reality-based.

Greenman

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GIVE THE ABANDONED HOMES TO THE 35+ MILLION HOMELSSS
Posted by: cori on Jul 3, 2009 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is absolutely amazing - we have the biggest homeless population in the developed world but rather then let this exploding population have a place to live, they would let them and us to be sure to guy in the gutter

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement