Detroit to close servers, transfer characters.

[Tammarion]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100308/ap_on_bi_ge/us_downsizing_detroit

Operating on a scale never before attempted in this country, the city would demolish houses in some of the most desolate sections of Detroit and move residents into stronger neighborhoods.

[Hollus]

Interesting concept. I believe, and I'm not 100% sure, that Germany did something like that with some of their cities a couple of decades a go.

[Riddick]

This isnt funded by a company called OCP is it?

[Allison]

I'll be interested to hear what our Detroit Lions think of this.

[MickeyFinn]

zing!

[Muadi]

I think its an interesting idea. It may do a number of things. (This just seems common sense to me, nothing to do with the fact that I live near Detroit)

If they bulldoze certain neighborhoods, and relocate people, Detroit will reduce the number of houses in the area. The City then developes all the land to farming... making it look much nicer. All of a sudden, the houses that remain may become desierable again, creating some demand and pride of ownership. Interesting thought?

If they create farmland, and plant crops... I would recommend they plant grains/soy-beans, etc. All other crops will be completely raided by the locals (Detroiters and others). Plant crops that need to be processed before being eaten.

Detroit is a very large city... whats the number? 134 square miles? I think thats bigger than San Francisco and Boston combined. There is a lot of land to be farmed. I think it would look pretty nice. Currently, as you drive along the major freeways, it looks like a war zone. Abandonded, broken and burnt down. Pretty depressing to see.

Over all, I think it would be a good idea. I wonder where the money will come from.

[Noleader]

I think it is a great idea. The city right now is trashed and they need to do something this radical to get the city booming again.

[Buki]

Interesting that you use the word radical for cleaning up the trash.

[Allison]

Surely they'll have to use eminent domain to do it. I'm cool with that, because I think it can be warranted for that kind of blight. But I think some other people on this board have a different view, don't they?

[MickeyFinn]

Noleader supporting government expenditure on something that could be handled by the private sector? I've seen it all you F*'in communist!!

[Riddick]

Surely they'll have to use eminent domain to do it. I'm cool with that, because I think it can be warranted for that kind of blight. But I think some other people on this board have a different view, don't they?

If eminent domain is some strange lingo for cyborg then I am cool with it too.

[Noleader]

Noleader supporting government expenditure on something that could be handled by the private sector? I've seen it all you F*'in communist!!

I think this is well within the scope of what we have a local government for. If this was an action by the state government or the federal government then I would have an issue with it.

[Slicks]

My personnal thinking on it is that its a good idea but i think a better way to do it is......

Local government cleans up the land

Then sell / auction it off to local people still living there for use as green space (ie tree farm) or farm lands.

Thus creating income for the local government through property taxes and possibly income for farmers who sell the products.

[MickeyFinn]

Instead of spending the money *atop their already massive deficit* why don't they just convert those areas to unincorporated county land, pull out the police/fire and other support, and let it sit? That'd be the proper way to save money.

[Hollus]

That would be more of abandoment and not responsible on the goverments part.

To make money, you have to invest money. If they allow the land to become derilict, then they would have more problems in the future than they do now.

[Post]

"I think this is well within the scope of what we have a local government for. If this was an action by the state government or the federal government then I would have an issue with it."

See, I don't think I've ever understood this position of yours. I see two roads of disagreement when the government takes control over something: principle and effectiveness.

Principle is things like freedom of speech. Even if society would run more smoothly by restricting speech, I'm against it because of principle. It is standing up for minority rights even if the majority disagrees with the position. It's harder to take apart this position debate-wise, because making minority rights absolute isn't freedom of choice, it's anarchy. So, there's some point in between, it just lies pretty close to minority rights. To attack it, the best way is to show the same frame of principles placed upon another scenario doesn't agree with the original.

Effectiveness is talking about the weight of bureaucracy. As government gets bigger and more power, it will become more corrupt and less effective. If our federal government was the ones calling the shots for a road in some town, for example, it would be ridiculous. So many loopholes, so many avenues of kickbacks, may not even satisfy the people who it really effects (the people who live by it), etc.

This is a much more tangible argument to attack. Not only can you cite other examples in other countries (health care anyone?), it acknowledges a hole in society to be filled by government.

It also means it's no longer fair game to cite the Constitution and things that are really means to an end and not the end itself. Not to turn this into a debate about health care (oops?), but if your issue with it is principled, then I don't see why this would be ok and public health care wouldn't. If your issue with it is effectiveness, then I don't see how that has any merit, with us having working examples in the world of it being effective.

[Noleader]

See, I don't think I've ever understood this position of yours. I see two roads of disagreement when the government takes control over something: principle and effectiveness.

Principle is things like freedom of speech. Even if society would run more smoothly by restricting speech, I'm against it because of principle. It is standing up for minority rights even if the majority disagrees with the position. It's harder to take apart this position debate-wise, because making minority rights absolute isn't freedom of choice, it's anarchy. So, there's some point in between, it just lies pretty close to minority rights. To attack it, the best way is to show the same frame of principles placed upon another scenario doesn't agree with the original.

Principle is there is nothing wrong with a city government taking action to improve their city. If they need to raise funds they put it to the residents in a bond messure and see if they can get the approval.

Effectiveness is talking about the weight of bureaucracy. As government gets bigger and more power, it will become more corrupt and less effective. If our federal government was the ones calling the shots for a road in some town, for example, it would be ridiculous. So many loopholes, so many avenues of kickbacks, may not even satisfy the people who it really effects (the people who live by it), etc.

When there are no other options some times it takes bureaucracy to get the ball rolling. I don't think the city should take ownership of the land for the long term... it should be a short term just to get it cleaned up and try to sell it for profit on the market. The least amount of time they are involved the better.

This is a much more tangible argument to attack. Not only can you cite other examples in other countries (health care anyone?), it acknowledges a hole in society to be filled by government.

I never said government had no place... I always said government needs to respect the place we created for it.

It also means it's no longer fair game to cite the Constitution and things that are really means to an end and not the end itself.

When was the last time you read the Constitution because if I am not mistaken it only deals with the federal government and not the states or local governments. Also I might add I never said the local government should ignore the Michigan Constitution when doing this project (thus the bond measure to raise the capital).

Not to turn this into a debate about health care (oops?), but if your issue with it is principled, then I don't see why this would be ok and public health care wouldn't.

Please tell me what clause of the U.S. Constitution allows congress that power.. and if you cite the general welfare clause (in the preamble) or interstate commerce clause I will slap you.

If your issue with it is effectiveness, then I don't see how that has any merit, with us having working examples in the world of it being effective.

And for each example you can show I can also show were the system is falling apart because of funding issues. Sometimes I wonder if you actually look at the cost of things before you try to save the world on a credit card.

[Noleader]

Instead of spending the money *atop their already massive deficit* why don't they just convert those areas to unincorporated county land, pull out the police/fire and other support, and let it sit? That'd be the proper way to save money.

Because it would just flame the fires. Wayne county does not have the police force to take that over and the crime would just go nuts. We saw examples of that in the 80's and 90's when the police force was light in some areas.

[MickeyFinn]

Interesting. I still don't see how that is the city's problem, but I guess it's only a matter of time before a city whose population rely heavily on an economic cog that is shrinking descend into madness.

[Muadi]

Slicks, I'm not sure there are many people left with any money available for this type of investment. I do know that there is some mulit-millionaire living in Detroit who likes this idea. Infact, it was his idea to convert much of Detroit to farm land. I believe he is willing to dedicate some 30 million dollars, if he can find matching investors. So, we have one guy williing to help out, I'm not sure there are others that will.

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/01/20/millionaire-plots-to-save-detroit-by-turning-it-into-a-farmin/

Its also not the North or East side.... its small regions here and there that will be converted. A couple of blocks here, a couple of blocks there... If this is ever completed, I bet it would look kind of wierd.

Then, we have other things to worry about. Farms usually grow good products because they have good land, and other farms around them. In the city, you have housing/industrial all around you, all 4 sides. What about over 100 years of industrial ground pollution? What about rain runoff? I don't think that water would be too healthy. Automotive exhaust next to the crops 24/7. People throwing crap into the fields.

Its great to see some cool ideas being thrown around to help and revitalize Detroit. But this idea needs a lot more review. I still think the best thing to try is to do the impossible, and get more companies to build in Detroit. Keep pushing to upscale the area. Make it inviting. I know every big city has areas that you don't really want to be in at night time, but Detroit has a large area that you don't want to be in. A very short corridor along Woodward Ave. is very nice at night. However, you don't want to wander much more than 2-3 blocks from there at night. Somehow, make the area safe. Then people will come to live and work, but not untill things are fixed.

[MickeyFinn]

Government re-dedicating land for a pre-determined use. Define communism.

[Post]

"Principle is there is nothing wrong with a city government taking action to improve their city. If they need to raise funds they put it to the residents in a bond messure and see if they can get the approval."

Perhaps I'm using the wrong wording then. I mean, that the rights of the few can withstand the good of the many. Things like freedom of speech, while most of society may not want someone saying something or another, that person's right trumps the majority's desires.

For eminent domain, an individual's property is being taken away for the good of the majority. For health care, you're being taxed for the good of the majority. Stripping down your statement to the method, you're stating there is nothing wrong with a government taking action to improve their society. Changing scope (city to federal), doesn't change method, which is where principle resides.

"When was the last time you read the Constitution because if I am not mistaken it only deals with the federal government and not the states or local governments. Also I might add I never said the local government should ignore the Michigan Constitution when doing this project (thus the bond measure to raise the capital)."

Again, you're arguing principle and not effectiveness. Are you really stating that your issues with public health care are alleviated if we allowed it in the Constitution (which we can do)? I doubt it. Furthermore, the Constitution isn't an end within itself; it's a means to an end. Freedom of speech isn't a right because it's in the Constitution, ethically speaking. Freedom of speech is in the Constitution because it's a right. The Constitution is an enforcer of good and bad, not the instigator of them.

ie, regardless of it being in the Constitution, every stance should be able to hold up on its own. Freedom of speech can. Arms ownership can. You should be able to with health care as well.

"And for each example you can show I can also show were the system is falling apart because of funding issues. Sometimes I wonder if you actually look at the cost of things before you try to save the world on a credit card."

Oh, come on. The system is "falling apart" by nature of being a system. ANY societal system is falling apart depending upon time and measuring stick. The fact remains there are ones out there significantly cheaper, more effective than ours, and aren't simply an "on paper" theory.