A proposal - Mothballing infrastructure.

You'll note that there is a lot of vacant land around this abandoned house. This is because the city of Detroit has bulldozed many of the vacant structures in the area, eliminating traces of urban blight. But why did this have to be so? The answer lies in the problem that all cities have - no one has yet developed a good plan to shrink a town or city when both businesses and people abandon it.

Cities such as Youngstown Ohio have decided to Mothball infrastructure by removing many derelict structures, and ending utility service to many of the cleared areas. If no one lives in the areas, they can be treated as park land or cemeteries.  This involves much less effort than providing police, fire, and other city services to sparsely settled areas. Given that Detroit has lost more than half of its population with the decline of the local automotive industry, it only made sense that Detroit go down this path.

What happens to the few remaining residents that want to make a go of it in these  areas? It might make sense to condemn their properties, and build them new houses in areas where there is a dense enough population to make it worthwhile to provide services to these areas. Instead of being the only occupied house on a block with derelict structures, the same person could be in the middle of a safe and vibrant community.

It costs money to bulldoze properties.  It also costs money to maintain the underground infrastructure (sewers, etc.) in these areas. But vacant land is much easier to redevelop when population comes back to the city.

- - - - - -

This is only part of the equation.  How should we finance the clearing of land? American real estate development assumes that all properties will be standing forever. No one includes the tear down of  a house or factory after its useful life ends. When businesses have no more need for the land, it is often abandoned. When no jobs are to be found in a community, people abandon their houses and the land on which they stand. As a result, the land becomes blighted.

How do we solve this problem?  I keep working a thought experiment involving an insurance bond which covers the tear down of buildings and the clean up of land. For a small monthly price, insurers would hold in escrow enough money to finance a tear down and clean up, resulting in a "green" site.  The land would be certified free of toxic materials and would be usable for any residential or commercial purpose permitted by zoning codes. They would have to adjust the expected escrow fund (and charge the land owner for it) so that the expected cleanup could always take place.

Why should a third party control these funds?  To me, I don't trust government to do the job of maintaining these reserve funds. Nor do I trust individuals to do this job. We've seen what happens when government lets businesses pollute the land and not hold the businesses accountable for their actions?  Rare is the enforcement action which forced General Electric to clean up PCBs from the Hudson River.  Rare is the individual who'd bulldoze a vacant derelict home in Detroit (or other cities.)  We need someone to be responsible, and we need a market place solution. So insurance companies are good choices, as they can manage risk AND determine how much of a clean up fund is needed for any property.  

How do we get from here to there?  Is this just a pipe dream?  I'm not sure if there is even a way to implement this idea. But what would have happened to places like Detroit if property owners had paid for the tear down of their properties?

The Packard factory complex (part of which is shown in the above picture) has been vacant for over 60 years.  It has been scavenged for all valuable materials, and is undergoing rapid decay.  The place is a hazard.  But if this place were bulldozed and cleaned up, it would have made a great park, and nor be a blight on the community.  And given 1950's prices, the clean up for this complex would have been relatively cheap.  

- - - - - -

Once land is vacant, it can be put to many short or long term uses.  For years, there was a lot of vacant land near the Whitestone bridge in New York City. On one side of the bridge was a city park. On the other side was a cemetery and some other unused land.  This land has been changed into a golf course. (No, I will not identify the course or provide images of the place, because I detest the man who the course is named after.)  Even the Fresh Kills Landfill has been changed into a city park.

Along the Hudson River, there are many old factory buildings.  Many were left to decay. But with riverfront real estate at a premium, developers are paying to clean up the land and rehabilitate the structures. If these structures had been cleared from the land, we'd have developed the areas sooner - as it would have cost much less to do so. As a result, we'd likely have had more affordable living space in a region known for excessive prices.

I am not against preserving historical structures. But I am against them turning into dangerous places, and symbols of urban decay.  Given the choice, I'd tear down every unmaintained property, clean up the land, and give it away to people who will take care of the land. This would be much better than dumping the clean up cost on the people who remain in these areas.  In short, if you made the mess, you are responsible for its cleanup. We teach that to children.  Why don't we hold adults to the same standard?