Obama plans mass bulldozing of abandoned neighborhoods

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/fina ... rvive.html

The Obama administration has proscribed some painful medicine to solve one of the Rust Belt's economic problems: taxes being spent on repaving roads and providing infrastructure to neighborhoods which have lost huge amounts of people. Federal funds are now available to bulldoze all abandoned buildings and to remove all streets and sewage infrastructure in them, to be replaced with new tree plantings for urban forests.

Many Midwestern (and some Southern) American cities have lost HALF their population since 1970, so they are using tax dollars for more infrastructure than is needed.

Do you think this is a good idea?

I don't understand how things being torn can make the city survive. It just cost more money to have them torn down. Would it just be cheaper to leave them in ruins?

I think it's worth the money to replant a forest. With native plants and animals, it might give the environment in that area a little boost.

I agree Chizpurfle52595- You create jobs when you tear it down,you create jobs when you plant the forest and the forest is working to balance the environment. The old abandoned buildings are depressing and often dangerous. I think it's a very creative idea.

In the case of abandoned buildings, especially those which have been unoccupied for a decade or more, the animal infestations, excessive mold buildup, asbestos, outdated wiring and plumbing, rotten structural components, etc. etc. etc. It's often more cost effective to tear down the buildings and build new ones than it is to clean out old ones and refurbish them. The only ones that will likely be saved are those with significant historical value.

interesting idea, maybe they'll hire people for gardening those parks too? It's cheap, but it's good labor .

Reforestation can improve the environment, including raising soil fertility and limiting erosion, which in turn increases crop yields and benefits the agriculture economy.

There is not generally much of an agricultural economy in an American inner city...

Think of it this way - would a typical block be better off with 5 or 10 derelict buildings, or would it be better for the community to bulldoze them and have open lots? Abandoned houses pull down property values, attract vagrants, crack dens, vandalism, etc. Abandoned buildings are far more likely to burn down, resulting in expensive fire department visits and risk to life. It does take money to tear them down, but it can be better and less expensive in the long run.

On one level, I agree with the idea.

Unused property that falls into disrepair becomes a major problem in no time. Converting the land by just razing it to the ground opens the door for new development as many developers don't want land that comes with big costs of tearing down and clearing structures they can't use or rehabilitate in a cost-effective manner.

Hmm, two birds with one stone. Create some jobs a la FDR's CCC, and make a town more attractive, increasing property value. Not to mention the aesthetic benefits to residents.

Kudos, Obama!

consider this, the people hired to bull doze are the same groups of people who are out of work at the moment, construction workers, unskilled labor, etc. and after the bull dozing, the land, (Now cheap due to the real estate market) is sold and things are built, helping out even more!