RSS Feed MenuSeveral weeks ago I wrote that conservatives hoping to compete in the Northeast and Great Lakes states need to come up with serious plans to address their declining populations and the homes left behind.
In short, I argued that conservatives should work to accelerate the process of tearing down abandoned neighborhoods and run against the governing Democrats who have failed to address this long-festering problem.
Yesterday’s New York Times detailed innovative efforts to downsize Flint, Michigan. Abandoned communities in Flint and elsewhere contribute to higher crime, decreasing property values, and a smaller tax base. But this article on Flint helpfully discussed an additional burden that these abandoned neighborhoods place on communities – the continued provision of essential services to the few citizens who remain in largely empty neighborhoods.
The scope of the problem in Flint is remarkable. The last time Flint updated its master plan was in 1965. At that point, it was an industrial city of 200,000 looking to grow to 350,000. Today Flint’s population stands at 110,000.
Flint is composed of 75 neighborhoods encompassing 34 square miles. The cost to the city of policing, removing refuse, and maintaining streets and public land in vast and often empty neighborhoods is substantial, siphoning off precious tax revenue that could go toward more productive ends.
No doubt, abandoned neighborhoods in parts of Wilmington, Newark, Detroit, Rochester, Cleveland, New Haven, Hartford, and Baltimore are a similar drain on resources.
Conservatives running in these states, whether for Governor or Senate, should promise action in these abandoned neighborhoods. This might not be an argument for small-government conservatism. But these candidates could make this case as fiscal conservatives and realistic reformers who recognize that these historic decreases in population are undermining the efficient and sensible allocation of scarce government resources.
Jonas.Stankovich // Apr 23, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Clay: I saw that article the other day as well, thank you for writing about it! I am interested to learn about the effects of 1960’s federal mandated school busing on the neighborhoods of Flint. Obviously the decline in manufacturing was largely what wiped the city out, but I’d be interested to know if busing adversely impacted the city at all. On Detroit’s Wikipedia page it says this (about Detroit, not Flint): Consolidation during the 1950s, especially in the automobile sector, increased competition for jobs. An extensive freeway system constructed in the 1950s and 1960s had facilitated commuting. The Twelfth Street riot in 1967, as well as court-ordered busing accelerated white flight from the city. Commensurate with the shift of population and jobs to its suburbs, the city’s tax base eroded. In the years following, Detroit’s population fell from a peak of roughly 1.8 million in 1950 to about half that number today.[17]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DetroitCurious if anyone has any information regarding Flint and this issue.
rand // Apr 23, 2009 at 11:31 pm
What a waste of resources! I agree something should be done to manage declining cities, and if tearing down infrastructure is the best way, then okay.Something is terribly wrong when we knock down buildings because no one wants them. The best solution is to move people to these areas, but they need an economy, and real jobs, to lure them there. Free housing isn’t enough.This really should be one of our national priortities, as it affects a lot of cities. We can’t build an entire city one generation and then tear it down the next and think this is a good thing.