Topic: Government Regulation
US Government to Buy empty Houses - FOR DEMOLITION!! A short exchange between a local bureaucrat and a Presidential candidate has big implications.by Larry Warrick
(libertarian)
Saturday, June 13, 2009
US Government to Buy Empty Houses - FOR DEMOLITION!!
June 13, 2009
Obama housing stimulus: If you want the price to rise, reduce the supply!
A recent UK Telegraph article highlights the efforts of Dan Kildee, treasurer of Genesee County, Michigan, who is literally razing 40% of the once booming GM town of Flint, with the intention of returning it to nature and concentrating the remaining population into a 'more viable area'. His plan has the support of local politicians and has caught the attention of administrators in Washington after a conversation with then Presidential candidate Barack Obama last year.
According to the non-US distributed Telegraph:
"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."
And his targets?
"Most are former industrial cities in the "rust belt" of America's Mid-West and North East. They include Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Memphis."
Kildee says that to resist the cultural and political taboo of decline in America is "like resisting gravity". Citing a new state law passed a few years ago that allows local governments to buy up empty properties very cheaply, the local authority in Flint has already demolished 1,100 homes in outlying areas and Kildee estimates another 3,000 will be razed. Rather than admitting to a defeatist outlook, he likens the program to "pruning an overgrown tree so it can bear fruit again". According to the article, "The city is buying up houses in more affluent areas to offer people in areas it wants to demolish." Kildee assures us "nobody will be forced to move".
Putting this into perspective, local government is using State law and taxpayers' money, naming their (very cheap) price to 'purchase' empty properties it deems undesirable and also to buy up the more desirable empty properties; then demolishing the 'undesirables' and offering to sell the 'desirable' properties to the very taxpayers whose money was used to pay for them in the first place. There is no mention of what happens if the rightful owners of the 'empty' properties decide they do not want to sell or don't like the 'very cheap' price assigned to the transaction. What if they're happy with their empty property and don't want to buy one of those 'more desirable' properties? Will they be able to point out the view of the 'rolling meadow' springing up around them as a selling point when the time comes? I doubt it.
Now Washington wants in on the act. The administration has shown interest in applying this 'relocation and demolition' idea to some 50 cities across the mid west and northeast. Not satisfied with the economic collapse, the nationalization of the auto industry, the proposed nationalization of the healthcare industry and the plethora of outrageous legislation emitting from the legislature (think TARP, pedophile protection act, etc.), now they are interested in 'improving our cities' by forcing the sale of private property and demolishing it. Having thoroughly trampled Constitutional individual and States' rights, they are now turning their benevolent eye to the 'unsightly' cities.
There are many instances of emotional and persuasive articles and opinions regarding the decline of our industrial base and the cities they support (just google 'rust belt') and most of these are heartfelt cries for somebody' to 'do something'. That 'somebody' is not some overpaid government bureaucrat who will, and I put this mildly, over-reach his authority at every opportunity. That 'somebody' is not the Federal, state or local government. Whether empty or not, it is not the business of government at any level to dictate property rights to anyone. If this is how it must be, start here .
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Those words do not 'change' because the country has fallen on hard times, or because some government bureaucrat doesn't like the look of the neighborhood. Once again, we find our 'elected representatives' (derisive laughter) have little interest in performing their assigned functions, but have all the time in the world to interfere in the lives of others and fly in the face of the highest law of the land.
Putting the brakes and eventually reversing the trend of unconstitutional big government is becoming my top priority (right beneath water, food and shelter, but that may change). There is a solution.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Larry Warrick only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Larry Warrick is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-06-14 08:11:13
Hi Larry,
I read this article also. I'll start by saying I agree with you that government will probably cause this plan to be poorly executed and politicians will use it to garner political status. That doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad idea. There are ways I could get behind this process in my community.
I've given this all of several minutes thought so I could look at it differently by supper time. Here are some constraints that could lead to a workable plan in my view:
1. No Federal funds for any part of the project.
2. The process for getting the property back into private hands without fostering corruption has to be defined ahead of time.
3. At least a 5 year horizon, no "flipping". (I'd prefer a 10 year cycle.)
4. Must include church property also. If a neighborhood goes, the church property goes with it.
5. No property owner can be forced to sell. Contracts for services, etc, need to be dealt with. Some homeowners may have to put in septic systems and drill wells when those city services are contracted. Roads may no longer be maintained also.
6. Municipal budgets must be reduced by the amounts saved by contraction. Government must shrink proportionally to the contraction. Accelerated government shrinkage would be better still.
7. All transactions must be open to any buyer. The government can compete with private enterprise on a level playing field but not undercut the market. This helps ensure the government buys only truly worthless property at the best possible price.
With a 10 year horizon a plan like this would ensure no government growth for a decade. People would move closer to city centers and jobs if they didn't count on government bringing convenience to them in far flung suburbs.
Today, local government is run by folks who believe in the myth of perpetual growth. They don't know any other perspective; their whole lives this paradigm has held true. Most of them are not going to suddenly realize they were wrong. They will continue to plan for a bigger better faster more future. This is why government will botch this good idea. They will be planning for recovery when they should be preparing for decline.
The quote you gave of the bill of rights has nothing to do with this proposal. Courts, time and again, have determined the government can take land for the good of the people. It's a fact, get over it. Buying houses and removing them to shrink the city or create green areas within cities is a good idea to reduce supply, raise property values and help reduce crime. Just because you don't live in a crap hole like this doesn't mean it won't impact you or your family some day. The reality is if America doesn't care about manufacturing jobs anymore then people need to relocate out of the midwest to someplace with jobs (where is that, china?) and something needs to be done with the waste left behind. People like you like to demonize government and embrace the free market, failing to see that a company would feed people to a grinder if it would spit out money.
Mixed feelings on this. One side I see the logic - better to doze them under than let them blight the neighborhood and/or become a liability... So the querry becomes; why have the state do it?
I am no fan of Eminent Domain, and despite recent court decisions reinforcing sweeping ED powers to various city/county governments where they were challenged, I do not like this application.
Like the Fire-Eater, I'm of the mind this should (and would) be better handled privately.
The reason that the government feels the need to step in is the fact that this is Flint, Michigan that we are talking about.
If it were profitable for the private sector to do this then they would have done it many years ago as Flint has been in a sharper downward spiral than the rest of economically depressed Michigan for over thirty years.
I am no advocate of eminent domain or government acting in this manner I can assure you that it would not be in the way of any private money since nobody with 1/2 a brain would invest in such a high-crime, already blighted area.
That said, this is the same reason that public money should not be used as well since the money would be lost equally as fast if it were invested in Amtrak.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
