Battle Creek to demolish blighted homes

Some of these homes don't look too bad from the outside, a few new windows, and maybe a coat of paint they could be sold to people for a small amount of money (no landlords)or given to someone who is low-income.(because they have lost their job, unemployment has run out and they are working at a fast food joint or convience store.)
What about Habitat for Humanity? Typical Government lets spend over a million dollars to demolish them instead of fixing them up, while we have people living in tents, under viadocs and cardboard boxes.

wasted wrote:

Some of these homes don't look too bad from the outside, a few new windows, and maybe a coat of paint they could be sold to people for a small amount of money (no landlords)or given to someone who is low-income.(because they have lost their job, unemployment has run out and they are working at a fast food joint or convience store.)
What about Habitat for Humanity? Typical Government lets spend over a million dollars to demolish them instead of fixing them up, while we have people living in tents, under viadocs and cardboard boxes.

Problem is that the people who are given homes do not take care of the home. They expect others to maintain them. That is the problem with socialism. We should not make the poor comfortable. It should be uncomfortable not being productive.

This is a good idea. Vacant houses that are obsolete, run down, or lacking a future due to population shifts are a negative drain on neighborhoods.

If you look at the population growth for the City of Grand Rapids for the past 125 years, you will see when a great many home were being built. Many of these homes are nearing 100 years of age, lack adequate windows, insulation, contain lead paint or pipes, and are vacant most or half of the time.

Successful cities reinvent themselves, redevelop blighted areas, and look to the future.

The old Urban Renewal Program from the 60s did some good.

When a house sits empty for a couple years it begins to decay quickly. Although these houses look okay on the outside, there is doubtless water damage, mold, human destruction, animal feces, and other serious problems inside. Repair costs can be giant on a house that sat for a while.

What a shame to lose these homes that way while people are homeless.

let me guess, North side of town? Very good point tho, some could probably be rehabed into sonmething nice.

I wish they would demolish all these houses in bad areas. Don't fix them up - and put the same people in them. If the neighborhood is run over by druggies, gangs and people without jobs - it's a waste of money. Use the money to buy up rental houses, and take them down. It would force people to move out and challenge them to change their lives.

They are trying to do that now in Detroit. We should try it here too.

Brilliant idea!

Take it a couple steps farther: Exert eminent domain over the blighted property, put the property back for sale contingent on money in escrow to build and a plan to build and repaying the costs for past taxes and demolition. Widen the lots, give the current bona fide owners/occupiers a double lot and a new home from the proceeds of the sales of the other lots.

Finally, concentrate the renewal project on a few blocks with the intention, noted officially, of a plan to push into adjacent blocks unless the property is brought up to the highest levels of city code.

Current longstanding owner/occupiers get rewarded for their diligence.

Battle Creek gets a much more stable, invested neighborhood to work from.

With volunteer labor (Habitat for Humanity) and other organizations helping (financial planning, community development, churches, hospitals, etc...) this could be a true model for urban redevelopment.

And yes, I would want to be a part of it.

In the Detroit area, these types of homes are selling for a few hundred dollars. The new owners are fixing them up and they are back on the tax rolls. They are revitalizing the communities with the low cost sales and the new owners rehabbing the houses. Razing them is a really short-sighted, expensive solution to the problem.

wasted wrote:

Some of these homes don't look too bad from the outside, a few new windows, and maybe a coat of paint they could be sold to people for a small amount of money (no landlords)or given to someone who is low-income.(because they have lost their job, unemployment has run out and they are working at a fast food joint or convience store.)
What about Habitat for Humanity? Typical Government lets spend over a million dollars to demolish them instead of fixing them up, while we have people living in tents, under viadocs and cardboard boxes.

Depending on the condition of the houses, renovation/up-dating would be much less costly and also provide JOBS for out-of-work people in the building trades.

Ive been looking at foreclosed and abandoned homes around GR to fix up lately. The homes may look acceptable on the outside but once you get inside they look like someone set a bomb off! A lot of the would require $25k-$50k to make them really liveable. Im guessing the homes in BC are no better.

I cannot say for certain about this specific neighborhood, but I have been in homes that have not had utilities turned on for even 1 season and they are just so far gone. It is trully cheaper to bulldoze and build new than to rehab.

Combined with scavengers who steal everything including the toilet and the drug element... a once historic or even a new beautiful home can be just destroyed.

Trully sad when you think of all the homeless people out there that would give anything for a roof over their heads and would have taken care of the home.

do the houses have to be vacant to be demolished? because if not, they could wipe out a few city blocks and REALLY clean up the city.

Jeebus. Seems like a lot of money to spend to tear down some homes. They must be hiring UAW workers.

For those homes that get razed,the owners are private and non-municipal, put the costs back on the tax rolls to those private owners and get some of tht tax payer money back!
Or they can choose to forfiet thier now vacant lots to the municipality. No rewards for the owners not taking care of thier properties.

Internet troll wrote:

Jeebus. Seems like a lot of money to spend to tear down some homes. They must be hiring UAW workers.

No joke, don't homes burn down for free all the time?

exactly...burn them down!good practice for the basement savers..

maybe the cost is high because of asbestos /lead issues.

The city has money to spend and they want to keep the city people employed. They make the decision and nothing will change their mind. Many homes that are decent are being razed to keep the ciy folks employed. They have no interest in helping people avoid the tear down...and just snicker at the public meeting...very unprofessional and again...short sighted! Not that Battle Creek was anything to write home about...now it will be a town of vacant lots! How's that working for you?