Like some science fiction tale in which the monuments to modern civilization – its buildings – are reclaimed by Gaia, Mother Nature, the Obama administration is considering plans to instigate turning back the clock of development in certain areas hit hardest by the bad economy. As reported in The Telegraph of London, razing areas of as many as 50 cities would be part of an effort called “shrink to survive” by some. 

The national scheme to bulldoze portions of major cities would follow in the footsteps of a similar plan underway in Flint, Michigan, the Michigan burg that has been the scene of economic hardship since the mid-1970s.  (The economy of Flint received its latest body blow from the Obama-engineered mass layoff of thousands of auto workers.)  The experimental program has been initiated under the auspices of  Genessee County Treasurer Dan Kildee and seeks to return large tracts of developed (but largely abandoned) land to nature.  From The Telegraph article:

Local politicians believe the city must contract by as much as 40 per cent, concentrating the dwindling population and local services into a more viable area.

…

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.

In some areas that have been hardest hit by the recession, in which whole neighborhoods have been left vacant when their residents left to seek jobs elsewhere, this solution seems to be pragmatic, even if the image of demolishing blocks of housing may result in the short-term depression of morale.  After all, our collective conscience sees this kind of work as taking place in the aftermath or natural disaster or manmade war, and it will bring the real weight of the economic into sharp relief if the images ever make it onto the pages of Time or as B-roll footage on the news broadcasts.

The short- and long-term effects of converting developed land to wilderness would, however, be less than rosy for towns like Flint than promoters of the concept may be admitting.

In order to comply with EPA regulations, as well as the regulations of state environmental agencies, the areas being “converted” will have to be surveyed as to the impact of the process.  It isn’t as simple as smashing a house into pieces and dragging away the remains, and the cost of demolition in some areas could be sizable.  Towns have gas stations, grocery stores, dry cleaners, and other businesses that have significant potential environmental hazards which would need to be assessed and mitigated before the land they occupy could be returned to nature.  Even with those challenges met, people remaining in places like Flint can almost certainly expect to see the promise of reduced costs of government service evaporate when the real costs of environmental responsibility begin to hit the bottom line.

But beyond the green aspects of the cost of Obama-forming, there are economic effects.  Although the culling of vacant properties might give a boost to home values, the increase will be felt in rising property taxes and in decreased affordability while incomes remain static.  We have a term for the condition of stagnant wages and inflating prices, and it brings chills to the spine of any economist with a conscience.

The White House has not yet released any policy briefs on this strategy (although a careful combing-through of stimulus monies will undoubtedly find that funds have been allocated for block granting or somesuch mechanism to ensure federal control over where and how these projects are conducted).  However, American Thinker has connected some important dots between Valerie Jarrett, one of President Obama’s senior policy advisers, and the Chicago Housing Authority’s “Plan for Transformation” which had similar goals and achieved dubious results. 

American Thinker also cites a Chicago Tribune article about the Chicago Housing Authority’s progress, hinting at the social engineering aspect that may lay at the heart of destroying housing.  From the Tribune article: 

A Tribune investigation found that almost nine years into what was billed as a 10-year program, the city has completed only 30 percent of the plan’s most ambitious element-tearing down entire housing projects and replacing them with new neighborhoods where poor, working-class and wealthier families would live side by side.

The rationale offered by the White House for its far-reaching solutions to the economic crisis now range from ‘too big to fail’ to ‘too small to survive.’  We have to hope that somewhere in the middle, there is space left for individuals and businesses to survive without the government annexing their freedom to choose their own course.

Related Articles:

American Thinker | Brit Paper Outs Obama’s Shrinking City Plan

Popularity: 2% [?]