MSU Red Cedar Message Board

My understanding from the many people I know that live in Indianapolis (and people who I have talked to that were involved in the process) is that large areas of the downtown neighborhoods were deemed blighted and the city came in and took them over. If you lived in those areas you had to substantially improve your residence within a given time period or the city exercised eminent domain and took over your residence. The city then improved the areas and sold them off. I agree that they did also annex other areas to increase the tax base in doing so. There was no downsizing, but there was forcible relocation - or at least the large scale exercise of eminent domain.

Exactly. I think most people should be happy that outside interests are involved - the City (government or residents) haven't exactly proven themselves to be very functional during the last 40 years or so.

1. There are fewer of these areas than you would think in Detroit. Much fewer.

2. Even in those areas that satisfy those criteria, there are other concerns than available land area. Soil contamination and proximity to point-source polluters can make an area unsuitable for agriculture. Water consumption and soil runoff can create problems for nearby residents.

There's more to siting this kind of project than pulling up google maps and looking for empty lots.

That has literally nothing in common with the plans to downsize Detroit. What you're describing is forcible gentrification supported by regional tax dollars. Michigan's eminent domain laws would never allow that and Metro Detroit has no regional tax authority.

Soil contamination? You are living in the past.

Podponics is the future.

The thought crossed my mind.

More importantly, the City would never allow it. Too bad. Indianapolis is great city. I wish Detroit were a lot more like it.

The point, however, was the question was posed where forced relocation worked. I gave an example. I agree that the downsizing portion of the Detroit model is different because you are not expanding your tax base through adding residential areas. Though in the Detroit model you still expand that tax base by making usable land with the now clear areas. Alas, this will not happen because Detroit does not want farming (or anything truly innovative - trying to become the "next" tech center is not innovative) within its borders. I try very hard to support the growth of the city and support the city as much as I can. It is difficult sometimes though when it seems that those within the city (and especially its government) don't want to get creative with how they turn things around. Detroit is a different and worse model of economic collapse than any other city in the country. We are going to have to get innovative to make it work. It will never simply return to its status of the 1950's. When manufacturing left the US, it took that possibility with it (and it is not coming back).

I can't imagine they would be plowing soil and growing food in the ground. Hydroponics (w/food grown in storage trailers) would make more sense. They wouldn't need a ton of land for that.

I'm from the Lower SE side of Detroit where this project would be implemented. It seems to me that there are sections of land there that are abandoned and large enough to support the project. I cannot speak to the soil quality of those areas.

One thing to keep in mind is that this project would be done through a public university, not a private entity (i.e. Hantz farm) which mean the project might be tax exempt. I don't know exactly how the tax exempt status of public universities works, but the city is likely not getting much tax revenue from any suitable property right now anyway.

This isn't a business project, it is a research project. It would be an opportunity for hundreds of innovative young minds to intimately experience Detroit when they otherwise would not have. It could also serve as a catalyst for new urban farming projects to start up, and as resource to many of the existing ones (like The Capuchin Soup Kitchen Greenworks).

Overall there are some local control implications that need to be addressed, but I really hope this doesn't turn into an ugly city resident vs. the outsiders fight. That would leave the project DOA and it has the potential to do a lot of good in Detroit.

Blah, blah, blah. Will this help recruiting in the city of Detroit or not?

That's not exactly what happened but I see your point. It was Bob Thompson, not Zuckerberg, who offered the money.

As a Detroit resident I'm tired of people griping about outside forces coming in to take control of our city. Our local government has been mismanaged for decades and it's obvious that right now the city can't keep control of itself.

That's why I think the consent-deal was a positive step forward. It's time for people to let go of the Coleman Young era race-centered politics and realize that these kinds of measures are for the good of the city, and the good of the state.

Meh.. looks like another opportunity for the Detroit City Council to give the middle finger to outside help as they deem it to be not in their sterling city's best interest.

That's going to be the problem and you can tell in this article just by some of the quotes from the Council members. This Underwood quote for example: “The social part is about relationships as much as it is anything else,” she told the Free Press. “And that takes time to build trust and relationships in a community.” ... Right. So they trust Kwame and Coleman Young to run their city and trust people in the community to not turn abandoned buildings into drug houses, but they are hesitant to trust a green-lit, thought out project coming in from the outside. For Detroit, it's going to come down to the notion of 'How much money are you planning to make off us using our land?' This plan will get a bad grade in Detroit. Councilmembers down there, like any place, are trying to get re-elected and will appease their base to do so... and the fact is that much of their election base doesn't trust white people to call the shots in their city. Plain and simple.