So what do you tards think about Detroit looking to doze 25% of the area and turn it back into farmland?
. Unregistered
Posted 3/9/2010 9:51 pm
Sad part is that so many people don't really understand just how fucked that city is. There are whole sections that are just a waste land. No one fucking there. I mean buildings, but no people.
Doze it, and then let the metal scavengers take what is left. Burn the rest...
There's no way to attract decent people to an 85% black city.
If you're within the city limits and you have a job you'll be taxed to pay for the dead weight of all those africans.
The only way to solve that would be to shrink the city itself, and make new towns out of the abandoned areas. But even then the possibility of that huge mass of africans spreading will inhibit development.
There's no way to attract decent people to an 85% black city.
If you're within the city limits and you have a job you'll be taxed to pay for the dead weight of all those africans.
The only way to solve that would be to shrink the city itself, and make new towns out of the abandoned areas. But even then the possibility of that huge mass of africans spreading will inhibit development.
Posted 3/9/2010 10:44 pm
For the abandoned parts of the city - full steam ahead. Who are you "screwing" but the people not doing shit with their land in the first place?!
The "rural" areas will just become dumps and hangouts.
Everyone ganged up on Detroit to destroy it: africans, mafia unions, federal over-regulation, the welfare state and Jewish sociologists.
homesteading is actually a great idea
what they need to do is bring in a bunch of *white trash* have them demo and rebuild everything them give the same people who revitalized the area pieces of land. it would be an excellent incentive, white people would have that nightmare straightened out in a flash. but before any work started, the homesteaders would have to chase all the africans off. white people would know better than to let the same foul creatures who fucked the land up in the first place have anything to do with the development.
what they need to do is bring in a bunch of *white trash* have them demo and rebuild everything them give the same people who revitalized the area pieces of land. it would be an excellent incentive, white people would have that nightmare straightened out in a flash. but before any work started, the homesteaders would have to chase all the africans off. white people would know better than to let the same foul creatures who fucked the land up in the first place have anything to do with the development.
So all the settlers would get special hunting permits for all season hunting of "varmints". Negroes will be defined as "varmints" under the new law.
There's no way to attract decent people to an 85% black city.
If you're within the city limits and you have a job you'll be taxed to pay for the dead weight of all those africans.
The only way to solve that would be to shrink the city itself, and make new towns out of the abandoned areas. But even then the possibility of that huge mass of africans spreading will inhibit development.
Aren't the property taxes there fairly heavy for what services a person gets? That seems to mean that occupiers seem fairly ready to abandon and sometimes torch their homes. The CBD isn't overcrowded, it's looks empty of people, though it's not ruinous. A city whose main train station was closed in 1987 is fairly fucked.
Aren't the property taxes there fairly heavy for what services a person gets? That seems to mean that occupiers seem fairly ready to abandon and sometimes torch their homes. The CBD isn't overcrowded, it's looks empty of people, though it's not ruinous. A city whose main train station was closed in 1987 is fairly fucked.
I just checked the 2009 property taxes on a $66k home in the area where the story is about and they are pretty damn high, $2300 a year.
I just checked the 2009 property taxes on a $66k home in the area where the story is about and they are pretty damn high, $2300 a year.
I just checked another foreclosure sale for $15k (that's right) and the 2009 taxes are $6880. I wonder if that is for a single year or if there were back taxes in that amount.
I checked another and it sold for $20k in 2008 and is under contract now for $80k and the taxes are $5000 a year. It looks like there are some flipping opportunities there.
Aren't the property taxes there fairly heavy for what services a person gets? That seems to mean that occupiers seem fairly ready to abandon and sometimes torch their homes. The CBD isn't overcrowded, it's looks empty of people, though it's not ruinous. A city whose main train station was closed in 1987 is fairly fucked.
Yeah, it's pretty expensive - the problem is that Detroit still thinks of itself as being a big city when it really isn't any more - but it still has big city overheads despite having neither the population nor the industry to support it.
On top of this, much of the old industrial areas have variable and unknown levels of contamination from previous occupiers, so nobody wants to set up there for risk of getting saddled with the cleanup bill.
Since there is basically no industry left, the only work that remains is either services - or the sort of office work that you can do anywhere - so why do in in a decaying city with high taxes, high crime and a shortage of suitable employees (since the majority of the people who have skills left the area years ago).
Basically, you could pick a random area of empty land and decide to build a city there, and it would be in a better position than Detroit.