Many of our large cities seem to not be able to sustain themselves. It’s usually blamed on some policy, stupidity, lack of planning, politics, demographics — something that was a mistake.
But maybe these large concentrations of people, streets and other things are inherently self-destroying, and that fixing the cities is not a matter of eliminating mistakes. Perhaps they reach a point where bulldozing and restarting is the only cure, along with a hope that the rebuilt cities will fare better.
It’s not the amount of people—it’s the people themselves, the ones who live in these blighted towns—they destroyed these cities—move the same people elsewhere and they’ll destroy the new city.
Now, I know that there are some decent people who were stuck in these cities when they went down the tubes-I don’t mean them—but the vast majority of the populace-it’s true as the sun coming up in the morning.
For the past 100 years, not so much.
These urban centers lack their prior justification for their existence and are a drain on society in general.
why bulldoze? The riots that are sure to come will take care of this without using taxpayor money.
Then, just don’t rebuild.
What is unsustainable is our industrial/trade policy. You know, the one that turned the most powerful engine of manufacturing in history into a bombed out rust belt. Where the rust belt is shrinking, such places as Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Beijing are rapidly growing. That's no coincidence.
No, cities are not self-destroying. How old is Rome? What Obama is trying to do (it's actually not his idea but he likes it) is a classic communist/fascist doctrine of controlling populations and people. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and our own government with the Indians have used it to powerful effect. Did any good ever come of it? Forcible resettlement. That's what it's called, and whatever phony good intentions are used to justify it, it's still bad.
Also, it won't stop with a few places like Flint or Detroit. Bank on it.