There are two ways to approach urban decay. The first is to ignore it, leaving burned out husks of rotting buildings. The other is for the city to foreclose on the large areas of desolation, demolish it, then put in foliage to uptake the soil contamination.
Eventually it can be redeveloped, and the larger the area, the more valuable the redevelopment. If done intelligently, and entire “zone” can be redeveloped, that is a “city within the city”, an enclave of prosperity from which other redevelopment can grow outward.
Eventually, the city develops a permanent redevelopment plan, so that in turn, parts of the city are repaired, rebuilt, and improved on a regular, long term schedule. This is already being done in some of the western cities.
Yep, I don’t see how the property owners aren’t being held accountable
I agree...the best option is to hire up 1,000 guys to just destroy buildings and housing of no value. Use legal means, with almost no cash...to just confiscate property that has been abandoned. Bring another 1,000 guys behind that group to just plant trees all day long over acquired property. In thirty years...this plan will peak, and someone will realize this mass of forest and woods there...and its inviting nature. It would eventually recover.
WRONG ! ! !
Goobers in gooberment agencies produced the problem in the first case.
When the market is ready, private buyers will purchase the land and create something there.
If the market won’t do it, DON”T DO IT ! ! ! !
As government can’t do charity (Constitutionally, that is), neither can it do real estate ‘bottom feeding’.
Just my opinion. YMMV.