"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 [Karina Pallagst, director of the Shrinking Cities in a Global Perspective program at the University of California, Berkeley]...A city is not a living being with a heart, soul and brain, and we should remember that. It is a political organization formed by citizens to establish rules that will allow people to interact socially and economically. I understand the difficulty in continually referring to the relevant people involved in government or market actions, but it is a useful exercise. When Karina Pallagst said that, "Places like Flint have hit rock bottom," she must be referring to the remaining citizens, the property owners, or the citizens that comprise the local government. Dan Kildee's perspective seems clearer; he is referring to the people that run the city and the financial difficulties they face in providing services to citizens. The article only condescendingly refers to the citizens served.
If the city didn't downsize it will eventually go bankrupt, he added [Dan Kildee, the treasurer of Genesee County, which includes Flint]...
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.
When net migration is negative, the remaining population, through their political representatives must decide how to cut back on services. Kildee suggests that city officials have and should continue to buy property in "good" neighborhoods and offer it in exchange for property in "bad" neighborhoods. The city officials would demolish homes in the "bad" neighborhoods and return them to a natural state. This may be a good way for city officials to deal with a declining population if exchange is conducted at market prices but the article suggests that the purchases of homes may not be conducted at market prices.
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.Without more information, I am doing a little guess work, but it seems that the owners of abandoned homes are the big losers. If I am a city official wishing to retain employment and needing someone to tax, who better to tax than those who have left the jurisdiction and no longer capable of voting. Force the owners of abandon properties in the neighborhoods to be preserved to sell at below the market prices and offer it to voters at discounted prices. Then force owners of abandoned properties in neighborhoods to be demolished to sell at cheap prices and create green zones for remaining citizens. What a racket!
Read more!