Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Does Detroit Need a Homestead Act?
An interesting suggestion from University of Georgia economist Jeffrey Dorfman, writing at RealClearMarkets:
A recent report by the Detroit Blight Removal Task Force calculated there were likely 72,000 blighted structures and over 6,000 vacant lots within the city of Detroit. Their latest estimate of the cost of addressing this problem is $850 million for the residential structures and between $500 million and $1 billion for the industrial sites. That is a lot of money for Detroit, and if they can come up with the money it would take a long time to complete the task. A better solution would be a city homestead act.
Much of the United States was settled under various versions of homestead acts. Depending on the location and time period, a settler could obtain 160, 320, or 640 acres for free subject to the requirement to live on and improve the land. From 1862 until homesteading was finally ended in 1976 1.6 million Americans gained ownership of 270 million acres, equal to about 10 percent of the entire nation’s land mass. While the U.S. gave away vacant, pristine land, Detroit can do a modern variant and give away blighted properties.
For example, Detroit could allow contractors and developers to claim up to ten acres of blighted residential land or a single blighted commercial or industrial parcel. For residential sites, in exchange for the land, people would be required to clear the site within six months and either begin construction of new homes within two years or turn the land into a publicly accessible park until they are ready to build. For industrial sites, the claimants would be required to submit a plan for remediating the site to the city and have the plan approved within two years. If claimants do not follow through on their part of the deal, the land would revert to the city.
With the claimants paying the costs of clearing away the blight and improving the properties, the city would save over $1 billion…
Well? What say you, Ricochetti?
Published in General
Indeed. Either the property needs to be productive on its own or it needs to be positioned to service surrounding productive elements. The second option is out; the first option might be possible, but for the reasons mentioned in this thread I doubt it’ll happen.
Living in Chicago, the former home of the “world’s leading producer” of so many various products and industries, I fear that we’re on the same path – only we’re working with a larger puddle that will take longer to recede. Servicing current wealth can sustain for only so long; eventually production must drive prosperity for long term health and existence.
ReasonTV has many good videos about Detroit (and other cities in the rust belt) on YouTube, some hosted by Drew Carey:
https://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonTV/search?query=detroit
Their series, “Reason Saves Cleveland” is also highly instructive to this debate:
Isn’t the solution to Detroit’s blight self-evident? Casinos and light rail! They solve all municipal woes.
Seriously, though, a free-market approach to re-imagining Detroit would be great for the city, and it would have the secondary effect of providing an example of a conservative solution that harnesses the strengths of the private sector, bypassing the hapless public sector.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned what I think would be the main obstacle – the R word. The remaining population is 85% black. I would guess that most of the homesteaders would not be. Imagine the uproar. I watched a movie with a scene of poor Dave Bing trying to persuade black homeowners to relocate so that city services could be better provided to the populated areas, and everyone was screaming about racism and segregation. Dave Bing, you may recall, is black. There is already resentment of the mostly white young hipsters and techies who are repopulating the downtown areas rebuilt by Dan Gilbert, the Quicken guy. I don’t think this idea would ever fly.
I agree with everything you said and kudos to you for putting it so bluntly. Any attempt to clean up the city has got to deal with this issue and particularly the fact that a large percentage of residents are indigent, armed, and dangerous and the police force is overwhelmed, understaffed and demoralized.
Split the City of Detroit up into several municipalities of a more sane geographical scope and you won’t have to “persuade” people to relocate. Folk will choose to move to the municipalities with the best governance.
They’ll still cry “racism” of course, but the benefit is that de-amalgamation of a city can be done legislatively.
I’m remiss for not liking this particular aspect of your comment previously; this gives the city some hope! Now let’s allow the hipsters to do their thing in Detroit as they did in Williamsburg and Alphabet City in NYC. :)
Put one of these on every corner and problems get solved, son.
Um, the Enforcement Droid Two Zero Nine was infamous for its particularly glitchy software.