Well, parts of it, anyways.
Recently the City of Detoit has hatched some plans to sell off a fraction of its 6,000 acres in parkland. My first thought is that this approach should be the default for any government — local or otherwise — which finds itself in financial distress. My recommendation here may seem counterproductive, since the sale of these lands would (at least for the short term) strengthen government, but the ultimate goal is to get the government out of the business of owning land, altogether. Of course the right to secession ought not be denied – but given the choice, I think many abolitionists would be willing to pay for it, a topic I’ll discuss in greater detail at a later date.
But enough of my anarchist digressions. Of course the various government factions, as well as the affected citizens are torn over what to do with the parks, many of which embody the very definition of “blight.” Keep in mind that three- and four-bedroom colonials are selling for less than $20,000 right now — if they’re selling at all, which is nominally about the same as they sold for 30 and 40 years ago. Adjusting for inflation (via EH.net) they’ve lost between 80 and 94% of their value.
Unfortunately the bottom line is that city parks cost money to operate, and the city is out of money. New taxes could be levied, except for the fact that Detroit’s delinquency rate is the highest in the nation, and their taxes are already among the highest (if not the highest) in the State of Michigan, and its population among the poorest.
That pesky fact, however, doesn’t stop the squabbling over what to do with the parkland, how to do it, or which parks to sell.
“My initial impression is there’s enough vacant land without hitting the publicly owned parkland” to build new housing, said Abe Kadushin, principal of Kadushin Architects Planners Inc., which worked on the Woodbridge Estates development east of the Lodge Freeway near Warren.
“Parkland is a very important and necessary resource in a revitalized neighborhood.”
Ahhh yes. The “there is no shortage of land therefore we shouldn’t get rid of our parks” argument. But not all land is of like quality — it is not homogeneous, even though by outward appearances one burned down shell of a once stately victorian appears like any other, and one overgrown patch of weeds reclaiming nature from the grips of urban blight is indistinguishable from the next. But might I also point out that there is practically nothing about Detroit that is “revitalized” once you go a block or two in any direction from the Casino, the University, or Comerica Park/Ford Field.
There may be plenty of vacant, vacated, or abandoned land in Detroit, but the quality unique to these parks is that they’ll require far less demolition than light industrial, residential, or commercial sites. Moreover, they’re located generally within or near existing neighborhoods – a point not to be overlooked if developers want to build more houses. It’s tough enough to sell houses in the D, but tougher yet to sell them in the middle of an industrial park just because that’s where the “vacant” land was located.
Although, you could always dress them up and call them “lofts.”
