Ace: aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck: buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD: cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix: mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum: petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton: sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022 Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022 OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published.
Contact OrangeEnt for info: maildrop62 at proton dot me
Detroit Deals With Depopulation By Demolishing Derelict Domiciles
Mentioned a while back -- Detroit is depopulating, with one-third of its residential homes simply abandoned. Their big idea is to demolish dying neighborhoods and turn them into farmlands, and condense the city into living (and more easily policed) neighborhoods.
The problem is that even in blighted areas some homes are occupied, and the owners don't want to move.
Frankly, I suspect for most this is a bargaining position -- hold-outs tend to get paid more. I don't imagine many people are actually super-psyched to live in a ghost-town of abandoned, decaying, burned-out homes.
I think one way the city can deal with this is to not be so insistent that every home in these dying neighborhoods be demolished. If they want to stay, let 'em stay -- you can build farmlands around them. Maybe they like the idea of being surrounded by farms. And who does that hurt, really? The only problem is police power, having to run cars out to far-flung houses, but that's a pretty small cost in the scheme of things. And it's not as if we're talking great distances.
But I Detroit only has $40 million for this project. The math seems difficult to me -- how does a dying city without much money adequately compensate people for all the seized homes? I've got a sneaking suspicion they don't have nearly enough and will be mulcting the feds for money every year.
More at Hot Air. It's an interesting question, as it pits the power of the state against individuals who refuse to go along with the plan. And it implicates zoning, which is one of the hottest-button issues around.
I don't know, though. At some point the defense-of-the-individual position crosses over into actual anarchism if taken too far. People tend to be property-rights absolutists right about until the time their neighbor, also believing in absolute property rights, wants to erect a fat-rendering plant, a slaughterhouse, or a porno emporium.
As I said, I think the hold-outs just mostly want better terms. If you can buy them off, fine. If not, avoid using the state power to snatch their land -- just demolish all the homes you do can buy out and turn just that land into farm. Again, I really don't see the big problem with having farmland studded with the occasional house (and connecting road). If people want to live the boonies, that's their right. The boonies have a lot to recommend.
But taking that option also gets people to stop holding out, because, in the end, most of these folks don't want to live in desolation. Again, they're mostly just holding out, so if you just tell them you'll build a road to their house and otherwise convert the neighborhood to farmland, they'll come to terms.