Regarding the Tribune's editorial regarding home demolitions on April 17, I'm amazed at the idea that there needs to be some "rebuilding" after vacant homes are taken down.
I am amazed that the members of the Tribune editorial board do not seem to grasp the idea of the land bank, where once a vacant is demolished, the owner-occupant neighbors would have the chance to buy the plot of land for a token fee and then expand their own yards and gardens.
Further amazing to me is the call to rebuild homes in these neighborhoods. The Trib's great idea is to build more low-income housing in these neighborhoods? To use community college education as a mechanism to attract prospective residents? I am sure that Habitat for Humanity does good work and I am sure that someone can explain the need for Sunshine, but is the solution to Warren's problems really bringing in more low-income housing?
Warren has a huge class issue. There are too many folks moving into the city and staying in the city who are detriments to their neighborhoods. Warren is at the endpoint of suburbanization and is reaping the harvest of upscale mobility. Those who can move, are moving. And the people who can own homes, pay property taxes and not tear down their neighborhoods do not want to live next to Habitat for Humanity homes, half-way houses, section eight rentals and all the mechanisms that Warren has depended on to woo people to bump up population numbers to keep getting government money contingent on building and rehabbing for those very people who are chasing out the folks who own homes, pay property taxes, etc.
And so it goes. A vicious and ugly circle that needs to be broken. I am just shocked that a "community" newspaper with an apparent conservative streak would be sounding the clarion call to rebuild a city for the poor and uneducated.