The latest word is Midland Atlantic wants a 4 million dollar subsidy on this project. That’s really too bad, because I’ll personally lead the charge on City Hall if they even think about handing over more than $500,000 to this project- and all of that in infrastructure.
So the question is how do we assemble a large lot in an urban environment, blighted or not?
Here is my proposition: pass an ordinance that no city services will be offered to single homes on a block unless the property owner owns 60% of the lots. So begin acquisition, tear down all the other properties, cut off water, sewer, street maintenance, police and fire protection and leave the hold-outs on their own. They also become exempt from property tax, however will still be liable for school taxes and other levies. The offer for their property will remain of fair-market value plus a set percentage for a “rebate” on cost of services that are no longer supplied.
A program would be put in place to relocate to similar housing at zero expense, and a time limit on those offers would be made available. If the holdout wants to acquire the other parcels to make 60% owner ship a reality, they would have to replace the homes with a guaranteed property tax revenue equal to the pre-existing homes, and pay exactly what the parcels cost for acquisition and demolition.
It’s time to start reducing inventory of homes in areas where investment is not taking place city wide. By consolidating residents, delivery of service costs decrease and the whole city benefits.
If Kroger wants to continue to do business in the area, they can- in their current location. If they want 4 million dollars- they can go to a casino and try their luck.
David, you amaze me sometimes. What you are suggesting, not the specfics but the general concept, is exacley what some of the thinking is in the Shrinking Cities debate. I’ve heard similar proposals from people in the former East Germany, which has its own urban abandonment issues, about shutting down utilties and consolidating residents.
I guess that is just common sense. Why have extensive infrastructure serving just a handfull of people?
From day one, I’ve said the same thing: build on strengths- don’t try to work on the weaknesses- it’s pointless.
We have too many homes, not enough people- and we have dwindling resources-
consolidation of everything makes sense- and for these holdouts to think they can homestead- fine, do it solo.
Someone has to approach this differently.
Is it not time for us to start talking about forming a good food co-op here in East Dayton?
I am not sure how applicable such a solution would be in reference to the shrinking cities debate, and a don’t mean to insinuate that everybody in that neighborhood is on welfare. As food for thought, though, Kentucky has instituted an intriguing policy for moving welfare recipients from parts of the state with dismal job prospects to more prosperous areas. Any Kentucky welfare recipient residing in a county meeting certain standards pertaining to economic distress is entitled to a one-time of at least one thousand dollars (I can’t recall the exact amount) that they can use to relocate to a county with an unemployment rate below a certain level. I used to live in southern Ohio across from Huntington, W.Va, and I know a number of people used this program to relocate from the more remote areas of Kentucky to Huntington (apparently moving in-state is not a requirement), a metro area of 288,000 that has seen quite a bit of job growth recently. Other cities attracting people participating in this program are, among others, Lexington, Cincy, and Louisville. The benefits to the individual families are obvious (The biggest economic development project in Owsley County, one of the counties people are being relocated from, in several years was the opening of a Family Dollar store), but it also relieves society of the burden of maintaining services for people in areas of the state where they cannot find suitable employment to generate taxes to offset the costs of these services. I wonder if cities shouldn’t set up programs where certain neighborhoods are eligible for assistance if the people relocate to another, perhaps nearby area. i don’t think people should be relocated a great distance (many like living near relatives, this would upset neighborhood business patterns, etc) but you could , say, move people from one city block to they next, clearing off four or five contiguous blocks for use as green space or large scale projects that will boost the tax base (had this been implemented years ago we might already be shopping, and the city collecting taxes on, the new Krogers).… Read more »