It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 10:52 AM
Looks like this is connected with the anti-gun programs. It would be kinda tough to bulldoze someone's house if they were well armed.

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 11:12 AM
Ummm.... not trying to go for a one line post, but....

Where is all the criminal element that is living in those areas going to go.....? They aren't going to just disappear because where they hang out is gone, you know.

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 11:24 AM
Sounds good on the surface but then if you think about it for a minute..

The plan seems to say they will take the people from these derelict neighborhoods and move them to more 'affluent' areas. Then the government will reclaim these lands.

This will cause the property values of these affluent areas to go down while increasing crime. If these areas are so bad because of low income and high crime what would change about those moved other than their address? Where would people find work if they double a population in an area in a city already in trouble?

Packing more people into smaller areas will also put a strain on services such as public transportation, electrical, water supply and sewage treatment, etc...

And what happens to these lands that are seized? Does the government hold on to them until a time they can sell for a huge profit to developers who will not be building low income housing, but luxury condos and malls?

Or, is it just easier to control a concentrated population of people than one spread out?

[edit on 13-6-2009 by Primordial]

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 11:34 AM
This will not go over well in Detroit, that much I can tell you right off the bat.
Granted, there are a handful of areas in and around the city that are pretty much ghost towns, but contrary to popular belief, Detroit is still chock full of people. Even if they just bulldozed the empty areas and neighborhoods, I don't see any real change coming of such an action. There are plenty of heavily populated neighborhoods in and around Detroit that tend to be the centers of drug activity, and bulldozing a couple of blocks will do little if anything to curb the drug trade here. Also, I fail to see how this would save the city any notable amount of money. The fact is, they don't really take care of the roads in Detroit all that well anyways, and the police presence is almost nil in the bad areas. Sounds like a colossal waste of money to me, and if there's no ulterior motive than the reasons supplied are lacking weight in my opinion.

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 11:36 AM

Originally posted by WhatTheory


So now the Obama administration can abuse it's powers even more by bulldozing a town or city that it deems unfit.

Did you even read the article?

There is no "abuse of powers" going on here. This idea came out of Detroit. Many cities are already considering this on their own.

The Obama administration is considering this as a federal plan in order to assist in the process.

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.

Once again, read the article... nothing like this is even being considered.

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.

Well as I read the article this is ALREADY going on in Flint.. and the Federal Government is looking to expand it... in order to assist these localities.

Are you frightened of your own shadow as well?

I bet you are a truther ain't ya?

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 11:45 AM
reply to post by HunkaHunka

Bulldozing the empty houses/neighborhoods in the D is a good thing insofar as the eyesores in certain spots will be gone, but other than that I don't see how this would really save anybody any kind of money. Real estate in the areas in question in Detroit would be practically worthless to developers. The only way that I could see this being a profitable venture is if they bulldozed some spots in the downtown D area and put up another casino.

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 12:07 PM
Hey, wait...

I Have An Idea!

Why not just cut off the Welfare checks to the specific problem areas, or simply announce that government assistance is being cut-off?

Within 2 weeks, the seething throngs of lower-class rioters will reduce the ghettos and problem wards to smoldering rubble, faster and much more efficiently than government-contracted bulldozers could do it on a 10 year schedule!

Once the cancer zones are thus flattened, go in and recruit the former Welfare recipients to actually work in the cleanup and reconstruction!

A Thing of Beauty

In this way, we save billions of federal dollars on demolition, we slash our Welfare expenditures by billions, and we employ and tax the very folks who have been bleeding our country dry for 60 years!

Wow. That was a veritable Brain Boof of ingenuity, if I must say so myself.

— Doc Velocity

HEY and when Obama "appropriates" this idea and actually implements it, I want you all to witness that I said it first!

[edit on 6/13/2009 by Doc Velocity]

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 12:07 PM
Would this happen to be the reason why so many Banks have refused to help homeowners to refi or modify their loans? Could it be, the Banks do not want to invest monies in properties they know will be part of the buldozing?

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 12:12 PM
reply to post by Doc Velocity

I'm sensing quite a bit of sarcasm in your post, so i'll just laugh along for awhile

Can you imagine if they actually cut off the welfare checks? Crime outside of Detroit would skyrocket as poor people flock to the Metropolitan areas in an orgy of thievery and violence. Not pretty!

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 03:32 PM

Originally posted by mpriebe81
This will not go over well in Detroit, that much I can tell you right off the bat.
Granted, there are a handful of areas in and around the city that are pretty much ghost towns, but contrary to popular belief, Detroit is still chock full of people.

I live in the Suburbs of Detroit, a former 24 year resident of the City who still goes there for work and play. The downtown has received the lions share of any money spent, the neighborhoods have basically been ignored and allowed to decay.

Detroit had a population of 1.5M in the late 60's/early 70's, now it is lucky to have 950,000. That translates into about 550,000 less people or or about 157,143 fewer households. I don't know about you, but 157,000 houses is a pretty large city that no longer lives in the city of Detroit. There are parts of neighborhoods that are intact, but there are large areas where there has been widespread devastation, like my old neighborhood. Those areas, quite simply, can not be rehabilitated into nice neighborhoods again sadly. Here, look at it in MSN Maps aerial 2-d if you doubt me. r=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&scene=5629887&where1=13555%20Caldwell%20detroit%20mi%2048212&encType=1

It used to be a neighborhood full of houses, now look at it. All those empty spots are where houses used to stand, right next to each other. Thankfully at least most of them have now been torn down, rather than abandoned shells like they were in the 90's. The only thing missing is bomb craters, I swear, parts of my old neighborhood look like they should belong to some developing country.

I don't have a great answer, but just clearing out the little bits that survive wouldn't be a bad thing to do in my old neighborhood.

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Why not just cut off the Welfare checks to the specific problem areas, or simply announce that government assistance is being cut-off?

Within 2 weeks, the seething throngs of lower-class rioters will reduce the ghettos and problem wards to smoldering rubble, faster and much more efficiently than government-contracted bulldozers could do it on a 10 year schedule!

And the best part of this plan is that not only will it not cost the taxpayer a dime to implement, but it will actually help to reduce the federal deficit.

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 03:35 PM

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]

Not from the article of the OP, the article said they bulldozed abandoned houses.

Again, hard to take the guns from a resident of an abandoned house.

If you are saying there is something deeper to this please post any evidence.

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.

Also, if they cant say WHO contacted him its obviously hogwash. Does anybody happen to know?

[edit on 13-6-2009 by jprophet420]

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:21 PM

Originally posted by WhatTheory
So now the Obama administration can abuse it's powers even more by bulldozing a town or city that it deems unfit.

Re-read the article you posted.

It was the local city administration that decided to start bulldozing abandoned properties. Obama and others are interested to see if this solution works. They didn't initiate the bulldozing.

It makes sense for a city government to do this if they've got people leaving and the city is shrinking, not growing. We've got shopping centers that are abandoned here; not even the homeless go there. Why run electricity to the area (to power lights in the parking lot), why have cops stop by there, why put it on a garbage truck route? Why repair the roads? Why leave houses to rot and decay, not even fit for the homeless to live in.

Why not bulldoze them and allow the grass and trees to cover the land instead? It can be built on later if someone wants to buy the land.

This "bulldoze the unwanted" policy isn't new.

My city has done this in several areas, where buildings had been abandoned and were dangerous to enter... where the landowner had defaulted and no one was interested in buying it. If they could get federal money to help them clear the land, I'm sure they'd leap at the opportunity.

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:41 PM
reply to post by WhatTheory

WTF .. Obama is taking credit for this?

The Shrink to Survive was innitiated by Youngstown Ohio 2 years ago as their cities manufacturing base shrank.. they left in place streets and fire hydrants for future growth, but took out entire neighborhoods..

Since then, several major cities including Detroit and Flint Mich have sent ambassadors to Youngstown to copy their plans.

Notice the article from 2006

# Obama, stealing ideas from hard working city council peoples.

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 05:41 PM
This is pathetic.

Instead of logically understanding this idea, you go around it and enter some NWO nonsense and "stealing ideas" because he's a communist islamofascist.

Give me a break. Let go of your little "individual liberty" libertarian bull and use your brain.

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 06:41 PM
I thought they might start doing it, but I hope their not just "bulldozing anyone s home down? but then again Nature is the way to go I 'mean soon we won't have a choice.
well we will but not on weather the earth will be nature or not. it's geting ready to recycle it's self.

great post


posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 07:41 PM

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.

Well here is a idea.... Take all these homes and use them for a purpose. Don't bull doze them all just certain ones that are in real bad shape. Take middle class families that have lost their homes and transport them into these homes. Make the people sign a contract to upkeep the property and make a requirement that they have a gun on the premises. The problems with crime would eventually go away and the homes could be put to some use and given to people that deserve it. If these people need jobs then have the government make plans to build micro factories that actually produce something of value with very little start up capital. These little factories could after a while be turned over to the people sort of like a coop where the spoils go to the ones that actually do the work instead of the people at the top. You could also give each person a plot of land where they would be required to plant small gardens so the land could also be put to some sort of use and it would move us to a more sustainable society.

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 08:17 PM
I admit, I only read the first page. I'll read through the others in a minute. I just have to say, instead of fixing New Orleans after Katrina, the US could have bulldozed, right? It's not like the Government did anything to REALLY help that much, in the picture...why in the hell would they feel its necessary to bulldoze these cities?!? There are PLENTY of ghost towns in the US..let them be. This is ridiculous.

Welcome to the New World Order.

Enjoy the "civilian labor camps."


posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 11:09 PM
FDR did a similar thing when he bought homes and burned them, bought crops and destroyed them (but there was a shortage and we had to "ration"...though FDR was the cause...OH and it didn't work at all)...but doesn't it cost money to...bulldoze? Aren't we kinda...I dunno...broke

Yay Keynesian makes so much sense

[edit on 13-6-2009 by yellowcard]

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 11:18 PM
reply to post by pavil

Yeah, there are definitely some empty neighborhoods. However, I still fail to see how this whole plan will save anybody any REAL money. The property is damn near worthless to developers and/or realtors unless something truly FANTASTIC will be built on the sites in question....So how will this not just be a huge waste of money in a time when we're experiencing budget shortfalls etc??
The only way that I could see it even remotely being worth it is if they city hired a bunch of the jobless and/or homeless Detroiters and put them to work on the project. Otherwise, it seems like a petty and trivial ordeal with all of the other problems that we are currently facing.
Also forgot to add that, although there may be quite a few empty houses in the D, many of them are in neighborhoods that still have a bunch of people living there. The city should've been tearing houses down loooooooooong ago.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in