Government planning destroyed thousands of homes in the mid 1960s, causing major social upheaval, and they’re ready to do it again:
US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive
Dozens of US cities may have entire neighbourhoods bulldozed as part of drastic “shrink to survive” proposals being considered by the Obama administration to tackle economic decline.
The government looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, 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 per cent, 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.
Among the cities the article mentions:
- Flint
- Detroit
- Philadelphia
- Pittsburgh
- Baltimore
- Memphis
All to be going into the woods.
I’ll do a little research and find out what party has controlled these cities in the past thirty years.
UPDATE
Althouse wants to know,
What will these non-urban buffer zones really look like? Even if it is something like a forest — made of very fast-growing trees? — or meadow, what sorts of animals — rodent and human — will run wild there?
Update 2
Chicago Boyz:
What the HELL is wrong with these people? Yes, that is exactly what it means! Economically vibrant cities don’t shrink! Bulldozing deserted areas of cities maybe their only remaining response to such a massive failure but it’s insane to talk about the necessity as if it arose from some brilliant economic insight instead of pure desperation!
Indeed.
As opposed to….vacant lots and abandonded buildings?
Have you ever been to Flint, or Detroit?
What is your point here?
My point is that there are a lot more questions than answers in this plan.
When you raze entire neighborhoods, people are forced to move, even if there are only a few left.
Regarding the “urban buffer zones,”
What will they look like?
Under what jurisdiction? Local? State? Federal?
Who will maintain the parkland? How much will it cost?
Will all area roads be turned into parks?
And on and on
For some odd reason I like Pittsburgh but I do sense a boondoggle. As to the other cities will anyone actually notice if part of even all of them are razed?
As a Philadelphia resident, this plan seems pretty ridiculous and vague. There isn’t much being said about how they define a “successful” city — as in, at what point would a city need to be razed to be “good” again? And what would become of the land after the fact? Empty space? Or would the city push for community supported agriculture or similar program? I think there are a lot of steps that can be taken before something as drastic as razing a city has to happen.
With regards to Philadelphia, a majority of the failure has been the city’s unwillingness to restructure its taxes, compounded with the backdoor wheeling and dealing that has resulted in new construction & businesses coming into the city without paying significant taxes. As a result, the middle- and working-class residents of the city have been burdened with footing the bill, while at the same time getting the short end of the stick on ever-dwindling city services (fire depts, libraries, education, etc). This is how organizations like the Philadelphia Eagles can wind up owing 8M to the city and fight to *not* pay it. I’m not a huge tax person, but I do believe that if there is income to be had and it lessens the strain put upon its poorest citizens — and benefits urban society — then its worth it.