UK Paper Exposes US Proposal For Mass Bulldozing Urban Neighborhoods, And Replacing Them With …. Nothing
Leave it to the British press to once again do the job of real reporting that U.S. journalists apparently won’t do.
This time, it’s Tom Leonard at the UK Telegraph. From Flint, Michigan, he tells us of a “pioneering scheme” that involves tearing down entire neighborhoods and simply abandoning them — oops, I’m sorry, I meant to say, “returning them to nature.”
This is apparently what passes for sophisticated urban planning these days.
Here are key paragraphs from Leonard’s story. Especially note the breathtaking anti-progress hostility of the idea’s champion (bolds are mine; Getty picture at top right is from that story):
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.
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.
…. But Mr Kildee, who has lived there nearly all his life, said he had first to overcome a deeply ingrained American cultural mindset that “big is good” and that cities should sprawl – Flint covers 34 square miles.
He said: “The obsession with growth is sadly a very American thing. Across the US, there’s an assumption that all development is good, that if communities are growing they are successful. If they’re shrinking, they’re failing.”
Kildee’s odious “all development is good” characterization of those who might be less than pleased with his outlook shows that he has learned quickly from watching Dear Leader, the “master” of the straw-man argument. But you know what? I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that, in general, communities that are growing really are successful, and those that aren’t are indeed failing.
This is amazing. They’re not even interested in attracting industry, or in new developments to draw shoppers, or in convenient housing that might lure residents back into town, or even in park or recreational space. Kildee and those who agree with him, apparently including the President, prefer to do nothing and let the land sit abandoned — while they proudly survey the non-fruits of their non-accomplishment. Maybe they’ll hold reverse ribbon-cutting ceremonies. Flint’s festivities could be emceed by infamous former resident Michael Moore.
If there’s a virtue to doing nothing, it’s that the government won’t get involved in something ineffective and end up wasting tons of taxpayer money in the process.
President Obama in particular may remember one such project, made infamous by the Chicago Sun-Times and blogged on last fall by yours truly at NewsBusters, BizzyBlog, and elsewhere — namely the $100,000 Obama Gazebo (or, alternatively, the “Obamazebo“).
Now the same guy who couldn’t be bothered following up on a project he said he would “work tirelessly” to have built is in charge of our country’s $3-4 trillion federal budget, including an $800 billion alleged economic “stimulus.” Let 8,000,000 Obamazebos bloom.
Pardon me, I need a drink. ….
…. Okay. Of course, the better answer for these near-dead neighborhoods would be to to sell the abandoned properties to private owners and see what they can do with them on their own. That sounds like that’s the last thing Dan Kildee wants. Who needs progress anyway?
As to the U.S. media — Where were they when this “brilliant” idea was hatched, and why are they apparently not shamed at being scooped by a UK paper?
As to public policy — Who wants to bet against “stimulus” money finding its way towards some of these “demolish and do nothing” projects if Kildee’s proposal becomes a 50-city reality? That wouldn’t exactly be “stimulating,” would it?
Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.









“Returning the land to nature?” What does he think humans are, unnatural lifeforms from Venus? An skyscraper is just as much a part of nature as a beehive, beaver dam or spider web is.
This whole scheme, like most things involving big government (I suppose this joker did not include that when he claimed bigger isn’t good), does nothing more than take away choices.
Herd people into as small an area as possible (nothing more enjoyable than being living in cramped and crowded conditions) and give them less land on which to build things they might want like parks, restaurants, or homes. You’re stuck with whatever they got.
Like you said, why not put the space to better use than just hacking it off? And when the city needs to expand again (which they most certainly will) they will have to spend even more money by having to start completely from scratch in redeveloping the “natural” areas. You can’t stay small forever, limited resources eventually lead to smaller and smaller productiveness and results.
Comment by zf — June 15, 2009 @ 3:20 am
This just has too many parallels to the forced resettlements of history – also taken for political convenience.
Comment by GW — June 15, 2009 @ 3:57 am
I half expect the bulldozed land to be given to the UAW…it makes about as much sense as them being the recipients of the largest share of the car companies. If not then I’m sure A.C.O.R.N. would take it. :( Brace yourself Michiganders…Big Brother and some local politicians have BIG plans for MI. :(
Comment by Tanya — June 16, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
Not sure what ACORN has to do with Flint’s problems, but back on track, Flint has lost a great portion of it’s population and has vast areas that have fallen into some very sorry conditions with abandoned businesses, homes and crack houses. I would much rather see parkland than what is there now. By the way, skyscrapers are not a feature of Flint…I have worked in that town and it is scary, how about you, commenter 1 and 3?
Comment by Gary — June 17, 2009 @ 6:13 pm
This idea is being “considered” by the administration- nothing is in place. Flint chose to do this on their own without input from the Feds. I would bet that the media coverage of this idea is a field test of the idea before anything moves forward. I saw this covered on several American sites before I saw it on the UK site. I would bet that those living in Flint who have seen the attempts to revitalize the city and declining population support this idea in some form or fashion.
Comment by Jenn — June 18, 2009 @ 9:14 pm