Is that what the Observer-Dispatch was hoping for when it wrote its sidebar "Smaller, Greener, Healthier?" to Sunday's article Cornell project’s goal: Help revive Utica ? That would be consistent with its elation at the impending destruction of Bagg's Square back on 10/16/1968.
The idea of "downsizing" Utica by demolishing neighborhoods is idiotic. While it may sound logical to to bulldoze neighborhoods and move the people to other neighborhoods to create an affordable increased population density, this isn't Soviet Russia or Beijing (not yet anyway). It will not work.
We've already tried this sort of experimentation in the 1960s to improve things but it only made Utica's economic climate worse. It was called Urban Renewal or Arterial Highways. Both types of projects involved massive bulldozing of entire sections of the city (which took generations to develop). While local media and cognoscenti promoted these projects history proved that they hadn't a clue. Once displaced, if people did not leave the area entirely they set up shop in New Hartford. That necessitated creation of more infrastructure in New Hartford (increasing taxes there), and decreasing tax base and wasting the infrastructure in Utica (increasing taxes there). . . . The "downsizing" idea will produce more of the same: a Lose-Lose proposition.
Hopefully the Cornell project comes up with some viable solutions to Utica's woes . . . but Bulldozing sections of town is not one of them ...
If we don't learn from our own history we will keep repeating our mistakes.
14 comments:
Go ahead & bulldoze parts of Cornhill. Then build low cost housing in New Hartford for the displaced. Watch the fur fly & listen to the howling by the Queen of the OD.
In theory and history your position is understandable and savvy. However, one of Utica's major problems is its deteriorated structures that have little market value. At the same time, rehabilitating costs are high. Sadly, some of the conditions in Utica are similear to those of third world areas. One scratches ones head to think of a solution that does not involve demoilition. The City already offers ownership of taken properties at virtually no cost and has been doing so for decades. Where there is no value, there is no ownership incentive.
One may also argues the lack of any code enforcement and the growth of the welfare rolls from downstate renters killed the inner city.
You have to also tie this into the dumbing down of the political leaders of this community, how many of them have ever accomplished anything in the private sector?
If there was job growth in the private sector and the growth is concentrated in the urban core you would see market forces take control and a resettlement of the inner city could have a fighting chance.
But instead you have government building low income housing, selling them at below market rates, you cannot change a neighborhood with subsidizing rents and selling a house for $40,000 when it cost 120,000 to build and the people can not even afford blue bags for the garbage.
As someone who is in the business of remodeling/restoring older homes, it's very expensive to do it right. I took ownership of our multifamily homestead of three generations in upper S. Utica on Genesee St and had to just about rebuild the entire house on the inside and most of the outside. I replaced all the windows, doors, porches, roof, plumbing, electrical, heating and insulation while upgrading all interior finishes except trim over the course of 10 years. When I sold it, if I hadn't got the house for nothing and did most of the work myself I would have lost over $100,000. And that house was owner occupied for almost of 70 years, in a good neighborhood and was meticulously maintained and never beat up.
So when I hear comments about "saving" older houses, in Cornhill no less, I know better. First try to find one that's worth fixing that isn't grouped with other rat and/or roach infested shacks then find someone who wants to reside in Cornhill and can afford to spend more than the house will be worth when it's done. For most blocks in Cornhill, the bulldozer is the only logical choice. Sorry bud, I need to disagree with you on this one based on experience.
good discussion...
The apple is rotted from the core. A healthy "core" and there would be
healthy "flesh" on the apple. Fix and make downtown vibrant and viable and the vibrancy will spread outward. Don't do this, and you will be throwing more good money after bad. The millions "invested" in refurbishing dozens of the homes in Cornhill was wasted and better spent to demolish sections of the city and rebuild more efficient new homes, if and when, the city ever becomes viable again.
Run down neighborhoods are not just a Cornhill problem. Take a look at parts of East Utica. Homes that at one time were occupied by working families & were proudly maintained, are now occupied by welfare recipients, drug dealers, & well, you get the picture. Many of these homes are now run down shacks worth a fraction of what they were 20, or even 10 yrs. ago. It's just a further indication of the demise of Utica's & Oneida County's economy, i.e., lack of good jobs, & the incompetence of our political leadership in adressing these problems. Who in their right mind wants to invest in a real estate market where city, county,& school district taxes are raised every year? Not to mention high utility costs, especially the MVWA which uses year after year rate hikes as a business model?
Interesting points, all. Although the "market value" of the homes in some neighborhoods is low, do they or do they not produce tax revenue to Utica? And for the sites that contain businesses also add are people employed/selfemployed or otherwise producing some economic return for themselves?
I keep going back to the Arterials and Urban Renewal. The areas bulldozed back in the 60s apparently were felt to have less value to Utica than (1) an Arterial highway or (2) The mere promisethat new development would be created by a government planned project. Only a relative handfull of people/businesses dislocated by these projects remained in Utica. It was much easier to simply leave town or relocate in New Hartford where the State's road (paid for by all taxpayers) led.
The areas bulldozed in 1968 might have been shabby, but they were still productive. Their removal not only resulted in their direct loss, but the loss of nearby areas as well -- because the "critical mass" of activity needed to keep the area economically sustainable was destroyed.
Part of Utica's problem is that Utica's monied class took refuge in the suburbs -- hiding behind the municipal boundary while at the same time dependant upon the municipality they left behind for water, sewer, customers and employees for their stores, etc. This is not the case in other parts of the country where annexations can be almost automatic.
When the flight to the suburbs took the tax dollars with it, taxes for those left behind in the city had to go up . . . creating a disincentive to anyone wanting to go into the city. Then the state using everyone's tax dollars to create arterials made suburban locations more accessible.
What we see in Utica is really the product of state policy. State policies have caused the sprawl and the have-and-have-not problems in cities.
But all municipalities in New York State are creatures of the state. The state can . . . and perhaps should reformulate them.
Before bulldozing neighborhoods and dislocating people in Utica, lets bulldoze the boundaries instead.
The whole will be more economically viable than what we have now. A comparison between Columbus Ohio (an aggressive annexor) and Cleveland Ohio (did not annex) reveals that a consolidated municipality is healthier that the unconsolidated region.
Bulldozing Boundaries is less intrusive into people's lives that Bulldozing people's homes.
Strike, How many times do you have to be told...people dont wanna live in Utica or have anything to do with it. I moved to the suburbs for good reasons. Myself and others will continue to move further out if blantant annexation occured. I respect your opinions and views.... but this forcing people to be Uticans is not going to go anywhere. Utica doesnt have their own act together. And i'm afraid it never will.
If half of the people in an enlarged Utica live in the suburbs, and half live in Old Utica, why would you think Utica would not change?
Someone is confused. As I understand it, the Cornell plan has nothing to do with tearing down occupied, tax producing structures. It involves reuses of abandoned structures, both commercial and residential. And, that reuse demolition. I do not think that anyone is suggesting relocating populations as described in the post and as practiced by the old urban renewal programs.
The Cornell story was paired with a sidebar article about bulldozing neighborhoods in Flint.
We can speculate why this was done.
I don't think it oppropriate or wise to infer that some side bar reference to Flint translates to the Utica plan and goals. There is no financial or legal mechanism that even could involve the yprooting and relocation of residents, particularly on any kind of large scale.
At this point, there is no Utica plan to do this that I am aware of. However, the topic has now been broached as something worth considering. Therefore it is absolutely appropriate to talk about it.
The legal mechanism is there. Even before Kelo v New London eminent domain in NY is available to remove "blight" . . . and "blight" is often in the eye of the beholder.
Of course, and sadly, government seems to be capable of anything in theory.The practicality of any large scale upheavel in Utica is virtually zero for many reasons. On the other hand, solutions to abandoned, deterioting structures rotting within neighborhoods are possible. And, creating re use potential via well planned and executed demolition is one tool. You can't get water out of the proverbial stone of strucures without value. If city leaders had listened decades ago to suggestions of some to create a new industrial site along the Broad St. corrider, thus creating inner city industrial sites, the economic base of the city might now be very different. But,this would have invoved demolition and some relocation.
Post a Comment