US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive

The Telegraph ^ | September 12 | Tom Leonard

[PghBaldy]

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...

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.

[nathanbedford]

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. Is this how the system works in the Imperial presidency?

Contrive to get the ear of our Illustrious Leader and you get your scheme imposed throughout the land by fiat. Intrigue Adolf Hitler in your conception of fascist art and,blitzschnell a monument will be built. Why do we do this with a top down approach? Cannot cities control even the structures on their own turf? Some academic comes up with a plan (which actually sounds good to me), get the ear of the president, and the full catalog of resources and money of the federal government is employed to restructure every majority African-American city from Washington.

Is this how our hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars are being doled out by this administration? Are all of the people who have the president's ear earnest academics, or are they black nationalist opportunists? How do we know? Is there congressional oversight? If there is congressional oversight is vitiated by our system of one-party rule?

Who draws the lines where these sections will be bulldozed? If the local planning boards do it, are they in effect only rubberstamps of the bureaucrats from Washington who control the purse? If so, what has become of the rights of local residents to democratically vote in or vote out their representatives who normally draw these lines?

The questions go on and on. The point is not whether the idea is a good idea or bad idea. The point is that the whole system is spinning out of control, in the dark, and corruption, ego tripping, and mismanagement are the inevitable handmaidens of this lack of control and transparency.

[x_plus_one]

Kansas City has already lost over 100,000 in the inner city in the past ten years. The change is refreshing. More green spaces and less blight. It’s not so much a gentrification as a cleansing.

[avenir]

Pittsburgh is doing just fine, thank you...The outskirts are where the trouble is, now and then.

Do you know anything about Braddock? I was reading about their mayor and his passion for bringing life back to his dwindled town of 3000.

[Spktyr]

Ah, okay. I think I know the ones you’re talking about.
They’re kind of off by themselves, overlook the Mississip?

[dasboot]

“THE PLANNERS ARE COMING!!!
THE PLANNERS ARE COMING!!!!”

[barker]

.....high upon a ridge ... approximately 1/2 mile from the Mississippi Bridge.

Isn't that kinda close to the "poor side of town"?

[Dr. Sivana]

Ah, okay. I think I know the ones you’re talking about.

I was being silly, referring to the lyrics of the old Chuck Berry tune. But then I looked at Google Maps, and it looks like Marie's house may have already been leveled by the St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital.

[driftdiver]

What the blazes gives the federal govt the idea they have ANY power to do something like this?

[Dr. Sivana]

Isn't that kinda close to the "poor side of town"?

For some, certainly. Especially if you're near the "Rivers."

[Spktyr]

“Necessary and proper,” of course.

That may have been the single largest mistake in the Constitution, with the prefatory part of the Second Amendment being a close runner up.

[ketsu]

Obama is following the Radical Socialist/Enviro-Nazi playbook, to a tee.

Obama wants America to be like Continental Europe. It's not radical per se, it's *globalist*. There's a pretty broad consensus for this type of social change across the political spectrum(including pubbies, but they won't tell you that). Planners have been advocating it since the 70's.

It's going to be interesting to see what America looks like in 30 years.

[Dr. Sivana]

San Fran (starting with pelosi’s house)

I'd rather start with Sotomayor's house. Whoever has Souter's seat should get his house Kelo'd until the decision is overturned.

[Lancey Howard]

All that’s left is a place dark and lonely.
A terraced house in a mean street back of town.

[driftdiver]

I’ve seen quotes that several of the Founding Fathers predicted the abuse of that clause. Can’t remember who or where though.

[driftdiver]

Is it any surprise really? For decades economic policy has forced jobs from the rural areas supporting many of these cities. Then they’ve forced the businesses to close or relocate.

They are forcing people to move to areas of high population density just to have a job.

[Uncle Miltie]

0bummer:

Destroy Cars.

Destroy Cities.

Destroy Banks.

Destroy Wealth.

Destroy Jobs.

Destroy Health Care.

Destroy EVERYTHING!

[tcrlaf]

I’ve been following the Radical Socialist Eco-morons for 30 years now, and it’s the same old playbook, only now, we have put the real LUNATICS IN POWER...

The International Communist/Socialist movement, and the Radical Environuts, are ONE AND THE SAME, and have been for several decades, now.

In 1986, Gorbachev said that Environmentalism would be the Vehicle for Socialist “Change”.

In 1989, after the Fall of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, Hans-Jochen Vogel, Chairman of the West German Social Democratic Party, stated at The World Socialist Congress, “We must embrace Environmentalism, for Socialism to survive.”

The entire “Global Warming” debate evolves from this quote, 20 years ago.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Radical enviros went from being Pro-Environment, to Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Christian, Anti-Conservative, Pro-Gay, and Anti-American (Especially Anti-REAGAN)

[nathanbedford]

I expressed my views on the federalism aspects of this yesterday in a different context in this reply:

Barney Frank Considers Cramdown Law (real headline)

Cramming down mortgages means that the contract between lender and borrower is altered ex post facto to deprive the lender of the security bargained for. In essence, the bank loses its priority rights to the property which have been hypothecated as security for the loan and the bank is reduced to the status of a general creditor and thus defenseless to the whim of the bankruptcy judge.

So we have the government monkeying with the right of parties to make a contract. The government interferes with the right to make a contract and it does so ex post facto. This is reminiscent of the Obama administration forcing the bondholders in the Chrysler deal to give up their security to favor the unions which had contributed heavily to Obama's campaign.

Manifestly, banks are going to charge more to make loans which are unsecured.

Of course this will be justified by the fact that the government has poured $1 trillion into the banks and therefore government is morally justified in taking the security advantage away from the banks. Once the government insinuates itself into these affairs there is virtually no end to the concessions it feels justified in demanding.

For example, if the government is providing health insurance called Medicare and fat people are driving up the cost of health care because they get diabetes, the government is now proposing to make fat children attend fat camps. The government is also considering taxing sugary drinks. Ultimately, the government feels justified in telling the elderly that their health care costs too much and they must die. Once the government provides a benefit it can extract virtually any condition (read: penalty) it wants, even on people who themselves do not receive the benefit -like the Chrysler bondholders.

When the federal government has the potential power to incarcerate fat kids in fat camps it is time to consider whether we as a people should return to a government which is limited to express powers listed in article 1 section 8 of the United States Constitution. It is the departure from the authorized powers which starts the chain reaction which leads ultimately to fat camps, death panels, toilet bowls that will not flush, deficits which cannot be curbed, debts which cannot be paid and a currency soon to be as worthless as Confederate scrip.

[Spktyr]

Wikipedia had this to say about it:

“The clause provoked controversy during discussions of the proposed constitution. While Anti-Federalists expressed concern that the clause would grant the federal government boundless power, Federalists argued that the clause would only permit execution of power already granted by the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton spoke vigorously for this second interpretation in the Federalist Papers as part of his argument for why the federal government required powers of taxation. At this time James Madison concurred with Hamilton, arguing in Federalist No. 44 that without this clause, the constitution would be a “dead letter”. At the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Patrick Henry took the opposing view, saying that the clause would lead to limitless federal power that would inevitably menace civil liberties.”

Looks like Patrick Henry was right. Again.

[driftdiver]

oy vey thats depressing,

i really wish I could see another alternative. If we don’t take back washington from the corrupt communists I don’t see many other alternatives.