rssThe Abandonment of America’s Cities
Thursday, March 26, 2009 at 8:50 am
- 6 Comments
The tent cities in Sacramento, Calif., which we described recently, and the increasing number of shanty towns detailed in The New York Times today, are only part of the crisis in America’s cities. As we’ve written, vacant and abandoned foreclosed homes in some communities have become a bigger problem than new foreclosures themselves. The vacant homes piling up are undermining all the urban development progress of recent years, and cities don’t have enough resources to deal with them.
At Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis, blogger Michael Shedlock passes along a chilling consequence of the emptying of American cities. In Flint, Mich., city officials are considering simply cordoning off mostly abandoned portions of the city, and no longer providing city services there, or asking the few people still remaining to leave. It’s like something out of one of those futuristic horror movies.
From MLive, the blog of the Flint Journal, via Shedlock:
Property abandonment is getting so bad in Flint that some in government are talking about an extreme measure that was once unthinkable — shutting down portions of the city, officially abandoning them and cutting off police and fire service.
Temporary Mayor Michael Brown made the off-the-cuff suggestion Friday in response to a question at a Rotary Club of Flint luncheon about the thousands of empty houses in Flint.
City Council President Jim Ananich said the idea has been on his radar for years.
The city is getting smaller and should downsize its services accordingly by asking people to leave sparsely populated areas, he said.
I haven’t heard of anything like this before.
People get outraged by AIG bonuses, and taken aback by bank failures. To me, the abandonment of America’s cities — and the complete and utter failure of Washington to recognize it for the crisis it has become — is the shocking part of foreclosures and the financial meltdown.
6 Comments
Comment posted March 26, 2009 @ 6:13 am
Call me crazy, but Mr. Shedlock seems to have something of an agenda here:
“Razing sections of Flint, Detroit, Youngstown, and anywhere else where abandoned buildings blight neighborhoods arguably makes more sense than Obama's idea of pouring money into schools to make them more energy efficient.”
Despite his use of the word “arguably”, Shedlock fails to provide any actual argument as to why demolishing whole neighborhoods makes more sense than increasing government investment.
Taking Flint, MI and Youngstown, OH as examples and then extrapolating some sort of national trend strikes me as pretty obvious cherry-picking (rotten cherries though they may be). Why not just make it three by throwing in Gary, IN?
Pingback posted March 26, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
[...] The Abandonment of America’s Cities [...]
Comment posted March 26, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
This is not some chilling idea – it makes sense. Cities expand and contract. We have to move beyond this idea that perpetual growth is always good. The planet can't absorb that forever.
Why maintain utility grids and other services to areas that are depopulating? Controlled and orderly shrinking of cities is a valuable tool.
I live in Flint, Michigan. Although I was born here, I have lived elsewhere for most of my adult life and returned about a decade ago because if believe in the old saw “think globally, act locally.”
For all our problems, it is an interesting place to live with wonderful people and a great quality of life. No, we don't have a Starbucks on every corner, but I'm never caught in traffic either.
Housing is amazingly inexpensive and often very high quality. Why are people so often afraid of change?
relax, folks. Life goes on.
Trackback posted March 27, 2009 @ 4:43 am
Buy Propecia…
http://www.folkd.com/user/buypropeciaonline Buy Propecia…
Comment posted March 30, 2009 @ 7:53 am
It's been under conversation for a while (http://www.shelterforce.org/article/657/small_i…) here and there, but it's a very hard thing to implement, even harder to implement well or fairly.
On the one hand, adapting to new realities makes sense. New ways of using some of this land could be great. On the other hand, it's become clear that vibrant cities, not far flung developments, are the sustainable way to go, and it's too bad that we can't make that transition directly. I think these places will get rebuilt, but it's going to cost so much more if we've let all the infrastructure and housing stock deteriorate first.
Comment posted March 30, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
It's been under conversation for a while (http://www.shelterforce.org/article/657/small_i…) here and there, but it's a very hard thing to implement, even harder to implement well or fairly.
On the one hand, adapting to new realities makes sense. New ways of using some of this land could be great. On the other hand, it's become clear that vibrant cities, not far flung developments, are the sustainable way to go, and it's too bad that we can't make that transition directly. I think these places will get rebuilt, but it's going to cost so much more if we've let all the infrastructure and housing stock deteriorate first.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
