Recently I viewed a montage of pictures showing various Detroit homes – and how they transformed over the past few years. Each series was a tale of stability transforming into decay and vacant lots.
It’s not just Detroit. My own town -1000 miles away- has the same thing happening. I’m in a particulary good position to know; I regularly inspect vacant properties in this area.
Why do you think this has happened across the land? Where lies the solution? What do you think?
These defensive details give homes a better chances of surviving wildfires.
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.
Start Free Trial NowGet instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.
Start Free Trial Now
Replies
Pretty much every neighborhood will run down a bit over the decades. And Detroit is legendary for it's decay.
Part of is caused by [RACIST COMMENTS]. Property values drop, crime increases, maintenance is deferred, neighbordhoods decay.
Then another problem is economic changes to the inhabitants of the decaying neighborhoods. My neighborhood is declining due to the collapse of good manufacturing jobs for the blue collars.
Sometimes the collapse is due to changing government activities that cause flight from the neighborhoods affected by blight.
Sometimes an aging neighbord is made up of homes that really are not worth the costs of maintenance, and that starts a slow downward spiral.
Then there are environtmental reasons for blight, such as flooding, bad smells, ugly sights, etc.
In Detroit, there are multiple causes that I have already mentioned.
Nuthin' like that around here.
Might be geography? Local politics (e.g coleman) drove all the businesses with jobs away?
Areas where one can go a few miles and develop houses on accessible farmland, why put up with the socialogical aspects of a decaying neighborhood, just move away.
Areas like here, buildable land beween the sea and mountains stays at a premium - if some group or neighborhood lets their area go downhill, pretty soon others are moving in and revamping the area as there is nowhere within a reasonable driving or commuting distance to move to.
Now, there are 'nasty neighborhoods' here too with druggies and higher crime, but zero abandoned real estate.
Bad Mortgages
The mortgage mess has really taken its toll on older intercity neighborhoods. People with mortgages they can't afford first put off maintenance because they can't afford it. When they realize that they are going to loose the house they no longer care what happens and it gets worse. They may take out anything they can sell before the bank kicks them out. Then it sits vacant while the bank slowly goes through the legal process and eventually remembers they own the house and tries to sell it. It is a target for vandalism while it is vacant. A low value house can quickly cost more to fix than it is worth when the plumbing and heating systems freeze and the plumbing, heating and electrical systems are pulled out for their scrap value by house strippers. With the reduced housing prices, less money can be invested in repairs before the repairs are more than the house is worth.
My inner city neighorhood in Toledo is starting to look a little better with fewer vacant homes. The are fewer vacant homes. Some of them have been rehabed and are occupied again. Others were beyond hope and have been demolished. There are still plenty of homes that can be bought for a few thousand dollars that need a lot of work.
loose lips sink ships
Blaming decaying neighborhoods on bad mortgages is a bit like blaming the sinking of the Titanic on an iceberg.
Speculation and irresponsible homeownership is mostly at fault here. Just because you are offered a deal that is too good to be true doesn't mean that you should take it. The credit card industry wrecks havoc on thousands of household budgets every day of the week; I don't see anyone currently up in arms about that.
Demographic trends
People are moving out of many states. CT, for example, had a net loss of about 2600 people in 2013. It has a lot to do with where the jobs are. Declining population leads to declining neighborhoods.
Our city deals with by using an agressive fix or flatten program. The city cites the property owner for violations and demands a fix or flatten. Often the property owners refuse to do either and the city then siezes the property and offers it for sale (Cheaply) to someone willing to sign on to fix it within a specified time frame or the city tears it down and sells the lot. If your city is agressive with it, the program can result in some neighborhoods not degrading and even spurring investment back in cases. At a minimum, it drives out slumlords and cleans up dangerous properties.
The Promblem is ... US!
It's too easy to blame "those people." Neighborhoods go good, or bad, one person at a time.
I WILL blame codes.Certificates of Occupancy.Restrictions on property sales and ownership. Manipulation of the political system-whether misguided or corrupt.
Let me use my own town as an example. We recently paid about $130,000 per unit for the construction of some "affordable" housing - this, in a town where the local real estate listings always offer habitable homes for less than $20,000.
Somehow, in this same town, landlords "can't afford" to rent out those very $20,000 homes for less than $600/mo- less utilities.
IMO, there's a lot wrong with that picture. Free markets work every time they're tried. In a city like Detroit, the glut of cheap housing ought to ensure that there is not a single person paying rent. Period.
People don't need perfect homes or nice neighborhoods. It was not too long ago that the only way to have a house was to cut down the trees and stack the logs yourself - all the while as the neighbors shot arrows at you. Talk about a bad neighborhood!
what free market?
renosteinke wrote:
Free markets work every time they're tried.
If it worked every time, then we wouldn't have had to subsidize the investment and banking industry with a 421 page I.O.U. from the U.S. taxpayer called T.A.R.P. This authorized over $800B in loans to so called "private" lending institutions. Can you say "socialization".
I don't think you can call the US banking system that existed pre-TARP free enterprise. Not when you consider the roles played by Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, as well as the CRA. Crony capitalism, sure. Free enterprise? Not so much.
W.Y.P.?
I don't think you can either. What's your point?
Only that it's erroneous to blame free markets where they don't exist.
Who's blaming free markets where they don't exist? And blaming for what?
Free Markets Work Every Time They're Tried
That was the statement I made, that got us off on this tangent.
I should have know that some pseudo-intellectual salon socialist would immediately respond with some variation of "there never has been a perfectly free market," Any his point was .... what, exactly?
Back on track: what was MY point? In the broadest sense,mypoint is that we have steadily increased the government role in property matters, making the market ever less free. As we've made it less free, the worse the mess has become. I hold that it is no simple coincidence that the most distressed areas are also the areas where there is the most market interference. I posit that the solution lies in FEWER government programs, not more.
That's why I mentioned the recent construction of some 120K "affordable" units, in a town with plenty of 20K free-standing vacant houses. Why should tenants buy, when they can live free?
There are many, many different ways that this point can be made;the lesson is the same. Prices won't drop, income won't rise, as long as the 'market' has to compete with the boundless funds of the government.
Yet, in no distressed area will anyone recognize that it was the governmental interference that led to their very decline. Instead, we have everyone -even oncluding FHB and the various authors- cheering every new feel-good interference with the free market.
As an example, lets look at RRP (lead paint) requirements. The effect of RRP has been to drive reputable contractors away from older homes, the very homes that need upgrading the most. Now the slumlord has yet another incentive to not maintain his properties. All we've done is remove choice from the market. Need I explain what that does to prices?
The most important element in a transaction is the customer - and we've removed the customer from the equation. Even in 'nice' areas, homes are built for "spec" (speculation), rather than built for their occupants. The buyer has zero say during the design and building; instead, the decisions are made by the developer.
Blame the "evil, greedy" developer all you want - but don't forget those who make the customers' desires secondary to their own religious agenda. Often building design is influenced by folks with specific political and religious goals. For example, the entire LEED process damns the single home in the suburbs, instead wanting us to live in an apartment in Love Canal, forsaking our cars for busses and bicycles.
As an example, in this town the ONLY purpose-built duplexes are the ones built as 'affordable housing.' With that common wall and shared yard, the house will never be completely "yours."
Let's try something that works (free markets) and stop repeating failed efforts.
I don't think you can call the US banking system that existed pre-TARP free enterprise. Not when you consider the roles played by Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, as well as the CRA. Crony capitalism, sure. Free enterprise? Not so much.
Jobs?
I am surprised that the issue of job availability has not entered the conversation.
People move to where jobs are and move away from where there are none.
Ultimately, the Detroit economy was a one industry tune, leading to decades of boom / bust. The current property prices simply reflect the current demand.
IMHO, yes, the profound corruption of the huge banks made a bad scene much worse.