US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive

US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive

www.telegrap h.co.uk

Dozens of US cities may have entire neighbourhoods bulldozed as part of drastic "shrink to survive" proposals being considered by the Obama administration to tackle economic decline.

(visit the link for the full news article)

What?
So now the Obama administration can abuse it's powers even more by bulldozing a town or city that it deems unfit. If a town or city is not going along with Obama's plans then lets just bulldoze it over. I see lots of opportunity for abuse here.

We all know how eminent domain has been abused so why would this particular policy be any different?

This is NOT up to the federal government to decide. If anytjhing, the local towns or state should decide such things and NOT the federal government.

www.telegrap h.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 6/12/2009 by WhatTheory]

Agenda 21...and Alex Jones exposing it 10 years ++ ago right again.

FORCING people into government-approved cities... disgusting... Seriously I thought Agenda 21 was nuts and would never happen... they are starting now.

[edit on 12-6-2009 by Vitchilo]

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Agenda 21...and Alex Jones exposing it 10 years ++ ago right again.

FORCING people into government-approved cities... disgusting... Seriously I thought Agenda 21 was nuts and would never happen... they are starting now.

[edit on 12-6-2009 by Vitchilo]

I have never heard of this Agenda 21.
I will have to look into this further as it seems pertinent.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Whoa creepy about that Agenda 21 thing. How many more items are on this agenda. I'll check it out but you could enable my laziness by providing a link for convenience hehehe...

I think this just proves yet against that Obama is on the NWO bandwagon.

A quick search on Agenda 21 found:

From the UN's very own website:

Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.

Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.

The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED, to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. It was agreed that a five year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session.

The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 26 August to 4 September 2002.

That's all it says. Will look further but I can see how this Obama bulldozing plan plays into it.

I don't know about the agenda 21 crap, anything from AJ is highly suspect.

Did you know that some weeks ago that banks in California actually bulldozed entire sections of NEW homes in Victorville CA?

It was all about protecting property values, these new homes were likely in the long term, especially if sold at depressed prices would have cost the banks, and would have lowered other homeowners property values even further.

I wonder if this plan to bulldoze cities is not simply a larger scale version of the above.

Low property values will impact trillions of invested government dollars in the banks, mortgage companies etc.

It could all be about the $$$$

Damn the people, save the economy.

i like to see them come and try to bulldoze my house or nebodeys in my nighberhood for that matter "although some could use a face lift"

Anyone have a link to what 50 cities are involved? I can not find anything.

reply to post by amatrine

Most are former industrial cities in the "rust belt" of America's Mid-West and North East. They include Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Memphis.

From the article.

More from the article. . .

The radical experiment is the brainchild of Dan Kildee, treasurer of Genesee County, which includes Flint.

Having outlined his strategy to Barack Obama during the election campaign, Mr Kildee has now been approached by the US government and a group of charities who want him to apply what he has learnt to the rest of the country.

Mr Kildee said he will concentrate on 50 cities, identified in a recent study by the Brookings Institution, an influential Washington think-tank, as potentially needing to shrink substantially to cope with their declining fortunes.

Most are former industrial cities in the "rust belt" of America's Mid-West and North East. They include Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Memphis.

In Detroit, shattered by the woes of the US car industry, there are already plans to split it into a collection of small urban centres separated from each other by countryside.

Actually it is a plan that some local politicians have thought about.

Flint, Michigan: Government Considering Abandoning Parts of City, Cutting Off Police & Fire Service

Some parts of Flint and Detroit are almost ghost towns. They only really harbor criminals and drugs.

The only real way to curb escalating violence when Obama's economic plan fails is to cut down on the size of the city in order to have city services condensed into a more manageable and effective area.

With all the layoffs and unemployment the city coffers are drying up. The city can't pay for huge police forces. So a smaller coverage area has to be maintained in order to serve the people better.

The only way that can happen is to abandon outlying areas of the city, places were crime is at its worst. Cut the cancer out and let the patient live. These places should be bulldozed. [snip] Napalm them for all I care, the people that live there should have the option to move inward into the areas of the city that are going to be serviced and other than that they are on their own.

Originally posted by whatukno
Some parts of Flint and Detroit are almost ghost towns. They only really harbor criminals and drugs.

I don't see the problem with this.

If people don't want to live amongst the criminals and drugs, then they can move. Wouldn't it be safer to have all of the criminals and drugs in the one place, rather than spread out?

Besides, if drugs were legal, then a lot of those criminals would become ordinary citizens. (I'm not trying to start a legalise drugs argument).

Just thought I would bring a few parts of the article which people didn't read out in the open.

The city is buying up houses in more affluent areas to offer people in neighbourhoods it wants to demolish. Nobody will be forced to move, said Mr Kildee.

But some Flint dustcarts are collecting just one rubbish bag a week, roads are decaying, police are very understaffed and there were simply too few people to pay for services, he said.

Having outlined his strategy to Barack Obama during the election campaign, Mr Kildee has now been approached by the US government and a group of charities who want him to apply what he has learned to the rest of the country.

Hard times have come and we have to deal with them. If this article is true then I think it is acceptable for cities to cut their losses. With that last quote I think it's important for people to realize that the government is not looking to go around destroying cities. They went to the man who came up with the idea for his community to see if he could help other parts of the country.

I am not going to say this is a great idea but it's something they we might have to accept. Cities have to pay for services that they provide and if they cannot do that then they have to downsize. It's not an option, in some cases it's just what needs to be done.

Originally posted by whatukno
Actually it is a plan that some local politicians have thought about.

Flint, Michigan: Government Considering Abandoning Parts of City, Cutting Off Police & Fire Service

Some parts of Flint and Detroit are almost ghost towns. They only really harbor criminals and drugs.

The only real way to curb escalating violence when Obama's economic plan fails is to cut down on the size of the city in order to have city services condensed into a more manageable and effective area.

With all the layoffs and unemployment the city coffers are drying up. The city can't pay for huge police forces. So a smaller coverage area has to be maintained in order to serve the people better.

The only way that can happen is to abandon outlying areas of the city, places were crime is at its worst. Cut the cancer out and let the patient live. These places should be bulldozed. [snip] Napalm them for all I care, the people that live there should have the option to move inward into the areas of the city that are going to be serviced and other than that they are on their own.

With the economies in these cities at such a low point,and unemployment rampant. It would make sense to just hire the unemployed to dismantle and salvage the buildings. Reuse the material. It could mean low cost housing for people,while giving a sense of worth to the unemployed.

Maybe there are some "genuine" intentions to grinding some of these areas to the ground. Maybe.
If such a thing were to happen, the next step would be land-grabs.

Those with the biggest wallets will become the new property owners.
I'm talking about huge wallets. Developers, landlords, other corporations.
There will be a tip-o-the-hat, to the creation of parks and wildlands of course.
Just to make everybody feel good.

This sounds like it will cost more money then it will save. Also I wouldn't be surprised if the people living in the run-down parts of the city brought high crime levels to the better places to live once they move there. Government should just accept the fact they can't control everything and shouldn't try to.

reply to post by spacedoubt


Of course, raze the burnt out boarded up, dilapidated houses to the ground, build parks, then maybe strip malls when the economy cranks back up in a few years. Then if all goes well the people that were smart enough to buy into vacant land for dirt cheap can sell it off to a developer for a windfall. Who then of course will turn around and sell it to new homeowners for a profit.

Originally posted by daddyroo45
With the economies in these cities at such a low point,and unemployment rampant. It would make sense to just hire the unemployed to dismantle and salvage the buildings. Reuse the material. It could mean low cost housing for people,while giving a sense of worth to the unemployed.

You don't understand. The banks and elite do not want the people to have low cost housing of ANY kind, it hurts the value of all properties it is near, it is cancer that must be removed before it kills their profit potential.

Nice idea, but they would be much more inclined to destroy affordable housing than to refurbish old or build new low cost housing.

The battle between the government and major financial institutions for years over subsidized and low cost housing is in part what led to the sub-prime crisis.

They are not going to let anything get in the way of their profits and will fight to keep property values as high as possible... Always!

Maybe the government could start a new subsidized tent cities program for the unemployed and homeless, far from the valued urban property areas, maybe on government lands?

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Dozens of US cities may have entire neighbourhoods bulldozed as part of drastic "shrink to survive" proposals being considered by the Obama administration to tackle economic decline.

Couldn't we just carpet bomb them?

It worked well with Dresden and Berlin.