What appears to be an urban development program with good intentions has now left the city of Evansville shaking their heads. It’s no secret that those living in the Evansville area aren’t too happy with the government program “Front Door Pride.†There are many reasons why we should be excited that our city is giving a genuine effort to rebuild our urban core, but at the same time, there are also many reasons why we should demand Front Door Pride be reformed. Why is Front Door Pride in need of reform?
For starters, the program fails miserably at taking into account its market. Obviously, anytime you are paying around $200,000 to build a home and then selling it on the market for a little over $100,000, you have to wonder if A. Your program understands capitalism B. Your program is sustainable. Yes, I do believe that the Front Door Pride neighborhood deserves to have nice houses. I think it’s a great thing to drive through some of these neighborhoods and see change taking place in an area that once had no hope. But I also fail to see how a neighborhood who has been hit hard by the economy can afford houses that are priced over $100,000 even after the city takes a major financial hit.
One organization that Front Door Pride should look to for guidance and advice is Habitat For Humanity. Located just a few blocks down from the Front Door Pride homes, you will see Habitat For Humanity houses that are priced in the $50,000 range. And if you drive through their neighborhood, you will see that just about all of these houses have been spoken for by needy, and much deserving, families who simply cannot afford the lavish Front Door Pride homes.
Another failed policy that Front Door Pride needs to reform is their practice of buying houses here, there, everywhere. When you drive through the Front Door Pride neighborhoods, you will see nice and new $100,000 plus homes that the city just completed standing right next to homes that are just barely standing. One look at this alignment will tell you that this nice, new Front Door Pride home is probably going to lose some of its value because the city failed to build their houses together. On the flip side, the Habitat For Humanity homes were built together in blocks. As a result, the entire neighborhood has been completely transformed, the property values are all about the same minus a few perks on each lot, and the spirit of the neighborhood has been effectively changed. This is what we need out of our Front Door Pride program.
As someone who believes that the key to turning around Evansville is through successful implementation of Smart Growth practices, I also believe that the city and Habitat for Humanity should consider building high-rises in these districts in order to improve Evansville’s urban density while using less land at the same time. High-rises would also do a better job of improving neighborhood relations than the basic one room/one level houses that are split from their neighbors.
Lastly but most importantly, I can’t stress enough that the Front Door Pride program needs to be moved around the city regions from time to time. Although I’m glad our city started with the 4th Ward since it has been hit hard by the economy over the years and has seen very little, if any, government investment in it, I do believe that it is time for the Front Door Pride program to begin laying down roots in other Wards once it has been reformed.
When you have some free time, take a stroll through the 3rd Ward neighborhoods that are bounded by Main Street, Franklin Street, Virginia Street, and the old Hercules Motor Company buildings next to US 41. I have taken several pictures of these neighborhoods and have enclosed them for you to see. Please click here to view Pictures
The condition of this region is something you have to see in person in order to grasp the gravity of the situation. Once the manufacturing companies around the neighborhood moved out, these neighborhoods have been left to fight for themselves.
If done correctly, these neighborhoods can be a source of pride for our city. They can help us attract small manufacturing and technology companies to the old Hercules Plant buildings as well as Berry Plastics, they can extend our Downtown investments, and they can show that our city is committed to bringing prosperity and hope to all Wards in the city.
At one of the mayor’s traveling town hall meetings, I sat down with Mr. Philip Hooper of the Department of Metropolitan Development. He told me that many of the young professionals who recently moved here to work for the company SS&C were looking for urban housing where they could walk or take mass transit to their office. He also said the city was interested in rebuilding the Jacobsville neighborhoods with young professional housing so that Main Street was connected from the Ford Center to Bosse Field.
There is no reason that our Front Door Pride cannot be revamped and partially relocated. The neighborhoods in the 3rd Ward are simply unacceptable, especially when they come with so much potential. Instead of Front Door Pride spending double on a home and then leaving it all by itself, shouldn’t our city be building affordable housing in bulk in all wards like the 3rd Ward? Shouldn’t those representing the 3rd Ward be fighting to bring both public and private urban renewal projects to this area?
It’s time for urban renewal in the 3rd Ward, it’s time our Front Door Pride stopped hiding our back door embarrassments!
FOOTNOTE: Posted by CCO without opinion, editing or bias.
If only the major ‘blight’ was the area descrbed by Jordan. I would also encourage people to drive the areas bounded by Main Street, Pigeon Creek, Diamond Avenue and the Lloyd. This is a huge geographical area, and the decay is shocking. It’s no mystery that some of our busiest fire stations are those whose primary and secondary response districts are in the areas described. Try to find a single block without a house that is obviously slated for demolition or one that SHOULD be slated for demolition.
As an aside, I’ve noticed that a number of houses have been taken down in our response area within the last few weeks. I presume this is because the annual demolition budget hasn’t been exhausted yet.
That area is known as “Jacobsville.” Yesterday morning I joined a group of citizens interested in cleaning up and improving that area as well. You can find that here…
http://www.facebook.com/JacobsvilleJoinIn?fref=ts
This article is part 2 of a 4/5 part series. In part 3 I will be talking about some inconsistencies in fining by the the BC due to what appears to be political reasons. Part 4 will be discussing how you can join in the Jacobsville project which basically overlaps this area because the improvements there are going to spill over to here. Part 5 (which I haven’t typed up yet) will discuss current city projects that need to go in these areas i.e the ball fields, tech park, etc.
Before we get too far from this article, I want to add this.
In no way, shape, or form have I given up on or accepted the current conditions of the cemeteries. I will still be following their improvements as well as and in addition to working on the city’s blight problem. I am completely disappointed in the mayor’s response to this problem as well as those in the top level of his administration who are in charge of this department (before it starts again, no I’m not talking about Chris Cooke).
The mayor has gone to all ends of the earth to market his exercise and trash cleaning gimmick programs as well as post a schedule of what all he is going to be doing almost every weekend on this site, yet we have not heard one peep from him about these cemeteries nor have we been given an action plan from him or his administration on how to gradually fix this problem completely.
It is completely irresponsible for a department to be given 70 grand to fix a problem that is now public yet fail to give any kind of action plan to the public for how they plan to use this money and future money to fix these two cemeteries. This is why previous funds over past generations have never been used effectively to prevent these problems. We need a plan that identifies all current problems with both cemeteries, identifies all assets that can be used to fix these problems, and a plan from the admin on how they plan to implement current funding to fix these problems.
The wasteland, Mad Max type world that is Evansville has extended as far East as Burkhardt. We really do look like Little Detroit.
This is accurate, in my opinion. When people ask where a nice neighborhood is in Evansville I’m frequently at a loss. Very few parts of town have areas that are consistently decent. It’s often block by block and house by house. We’re not as bad as Detroit or Flint yet, but we will be in a few years if things don’t turn around.
Any kind of undertaking by government is going to ignore market forces. That is a given. Why? Because if there was a market there to begin with a private developer would have seen the opportunity and seized it already.
The truth is this… This economy and this City cannot support home prices in these area at this level. There is no way for government to waive a magic wand and make FDP anything other than what it always was…a well-intentioned, but ill-considered idea that sought to create a market where there is none.
Simply saying FDP needs a revamp is missing the whole point yet again. If it’s not being done privately with private investment, you can count on it losing money. The continued fallacy of believers in a nanny state is that when government fails it wasn’t that government shouldn’t have been involved in that arena, it’s that the regulations just weren’t the right ones.
Problem is, no amount of bashing my head against the dense wall of stubbornness surrounding such people will ever be effective. They just need to experience it for themselves. Roberts Stadium should have taught Jordan this lesson, but the lesson was lost on him.
‘Private investment’ and ‘market forces’ are largely what has caused the problem to begin with, IMO.
‘Market forces’ are what convinced folks that they have to have 3,000 square ft homes built in corn fields to begin with instead of 1,000 sq. ft. homes found in the neighborhoods that are being described.
‘Market forces’ are what caused the kids of the folks who grew up in said modest homes to sell the house at a steep discount to the first landlord that offered them a nickel after their parents died.
‘Private investment’ is what it’s called when said deadbeat landlords let a house slowly fall apart by providing the absolute minimum investment into the property (ies) they now own. Targeting the marginalized as their renters means the landlord won’t have much of a fight on their hands no matter how poorly the property is maintained.
‘Market forces’ allow them to charge ridiculous rent because Uncle Sugar picks up the rest of the dime via Section 8. These same ‘market forces’ make it more cost effective for the landlord to simply let the house fall apart and not pay property taxes, knowing that it’s an extremely time consuming and costly process for a municipality to enforce building codes or chase them down and collect taxes – – if they can even find them.
Finally, ‘market forces’ make it more cost effective for the landlord to let the municipality take posession of the falling-down house and demolish it then to demolish it themselves or to maintain it.
No Sir… You are mistaken. It was the artificially created BUBBLES in housing, created largely by government stipulations on lending practices, that caused that problem of which you speak in the housing market. Blaming real market forces is a misnomer on your part. True market forces have not been at the driver’s seat in housing for quite some time.
Your example of HUD or, as you put it, “‘Market forces’ allow them to charge ridiculous rent because Uncle Sugar picks up the rest of the dime via Section 8,” is simply wrong. Again, none of that which you describe has the slightest thing to do with a real free market or free market forces.
Capitalism created the slumlord situation the person described above.
Far, far brighter economic minds than you or I have debated the role the ‘gubmint played in the housing bubble, and none of the non-partisan players (to my knowledge) have said that Uncle Sam was solely, or even largely, to blame. I’m sure it was a combination of goverment mismanagment and corporate malfeasance, as usual.
Also, John Doe stated more simply what I was trying to say. Capitalism and self-interest created our current problem. I’m pro-captitalism and self-interest, but that doesn’t mean I think it’s infallible.
Actually, it was a combination of government regulations on lending practices going back as far as the Carter administration and the loose credit policies of the Federal Reserve. That is the truth. You can ridicule me all you like as a dimwit on economics, but the facts are the government DID inject itself into housing with the very existence of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Bush’s “everyone deserves a house” policies. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve supported this housing frenzy, and all other artificial bubbles for that matter, with their policies on credit creation and as a lender of last resort.
The corporations such as Goldman Sachs that got all the benefits of the feeding frenzy got BAILOUTS in the end! And why? Because they had influence on and many cases former employees in key government policy making positions. They joined in with the politicians to pick all our pockets. Without government intervention in these matters, not only would the recession have never occurred, but the free market would have long ago decided the housing market was saturated.
No, the slumlords, as Delta pointed out, exist largely because of government section 8 subsidies. If not for the guarantee of income regardless of quality of facilities, a “slumlord” would not be able to survive on guaranteed checks.
Delta actually made my argument for me.
Why are you saying he ridiculed you? He said people with brighter economic minds than you or him. That is a true statement. Neither of you are economist. Just because he does not agree with you does not mean he is ridiculing you. Stop being so sensitive.
Delta, just happened across this… Economist Thomas Sowell agrees with me that the housing bubble caused the financial collapse of 2008 and that government was largely the source of the blame: http://youtu.be/bOMksnSaAJ4?t=2m32s
Good interview. Thought you’d like to watch it.
I wasn’t ridiculing you, Mr. Linzy. Accept my sincere apologies if that’s how it came off. I just think that blaming The Man for any particular financial issue is too simplistic. I concur that Section 8 is the bane of many cities, including Evansville. I’m not of a mind that all government policies are necessarily good or make any sense at all for that matter.
I do fear that your particular libertarian leanings may preclude you from acknowledging that government action in any form is A) necessary, or B) effective. I could be wrong on that. I personally think ‘The Market’ is not a panacea nor are the actions of ‘The Market’ necessarily good for the community as a whole. Good for individuals? Usually.
I would also posit that slumlords survive because they are morally and ethically bankrupt, not because of any particular government policy. Section 8 just makes it easier for them to make a profit. People hell bent on making money no matter the consequences to their fellow man will find a way to make it, government regulations or not.
Regardless of the ‘why’, the fact is that Evansville is no longer a nice city to live in. I understand that it used to be (I’m a transplant from Illinois), but, based on my personal observations, that’s no longer the case and hasn’t been for some time.
On the first point, I apologize. Upon rereading your comment, it’s clear you weren’t ridiculing me. I misread your comment and acted childishly. Forgive me.
I appreciate the measured and thoughtful comment above. It’s refreshing to see a lively, candid and respectful debate on these subjects. I think more of these are the order of our day.
I agree with the above in most every regard. There are some areas where government involvement is better than private enterprise. I think some government in the creation of infrastructure is beneficial to the forward progress of capitalist society. I think that some government involvement in those areas which were specifically put into the Constitution as limited powers of the various branches, i.e. common defense, foreign diplomacy, and court systems, are a necessary domain of a representative government body. But when government ventures into territories traditionally reserved, at least in this country, to private enterprise, I become skeptical. Usually it is the case that these programs are designed to help the few at the expense of the many, despite their statements to the contrary. FDP is a great example of this principle at work. Through taking of tax dollars from across the social spectrum, local officials are seeking to benefit only a few select areas which are, for larger economic reasons than they can fully understand, falling behind the prosperity curve, and in so doing, they also benefit the few construction companies, largely composed of union laborers friendly to their campaigns, who win the contracts to build these homes.
I do believe that goods and services are more efficiently delivered by a free market than any other type of system man has yet devised. It is the best way to divvy up limited resources in a fair and efficient way which benefits the BULK of people. Now, that’s not to say that capitalism is without flaws and that some people can fall through the cracks. That much is a given in any economic system, and to a greater degree in all systems other than capitalism – at least that has been the historical norm.
Again, thank you for the lively, candid and respectful debate, Delta.
No worries, Brad. Your points are well taken.
It’s an incredibly frustrating problem we face in the decline of the City. The issues seem to snowball so quickly, and nothing we do privately or collectively seems to be able to substantially improve the situation. I’ve personally decided to essentially circle the wagons on this particular issue. My wife and I will take care of our property and encourage and help our neighbors to do the same. We previously purchased and rehabbed two houses on our block that were either crummy rentals or destined for the auction block (to become crummy rentals, no doubt) and they are now tidy little houses that are owner occupied. Not everybody has the material or physical ability to do something like that, but it’s something we were able to do and it has definitely helped our block.
As long as our local middle class continues to shrink and our best and brightest young people continue to flee Evansville in ever increasing numbers this problem is here to stay, I’m afraid.
Delta, the private business decisions you describe that you’ve made is exactly what will save the City, if anything. You circling the wagons, as you put it, is what EVERY capital investor does everyday. Even in boom times, if you’re not circling the wagons and watching your butt, you will eventually get burned. The City of Evansville doesn’t need any more FDP type programs, what it needs is people like YOU willing to invest in your own home and your own neighborhood to make it a tiny bit better one house at a time, one tenant or neighbor at a time. That is exactly what built this City in the first place, not politicians.
Thanks again for this discussion. It’s good to have them.
Exactly!
Sorry, Brad. The voucher houses are mostly in better shape. I know this for a fact. The unsubsidized slums are awful.
Whatever the individual cases may be, what you might define as a “slum”, someone else might define as “home”. That slum wouldn’t exist without the market conditions that support it, i.e. low income to zero income people with few or no other viable or affordable options.
A “slum” is an acceptable place to live for those who live there precisely for the same reasons a beat up old hooptie automobile is a perfectly acceptable means of transportation for some – because a minimal investment is required to satisfy a basic need. It is the Nazi mentality that says “you cannot park your unsightly hooptie in your own driveway because it might drive down MY property values”.
This is really about a free market system vs. a highly regulated market system, and for some people at least, what you all are calling a “slum” might well be the ONLY affordable, viable stepping stone to a better quality of life in the future for many. To deny them the option of such places because government has somehow regulated them out of existence is similar to the way the “Cash for Clunkers” program took hundreds of thousands of perfectly functioning, low cost autos out of the market, thereby denying the poor with the opportunity to use these low cost options for transport.
You’ve got to be kidding me. “Low cost options” for the poor. How are they going to pay $3.69 a gallon for gas in a car that gets 6 or 8 miles to the gallon. If you don’t have any money, the last thing one needs is one of these “low cost options.” There’s a term for that but basically that is one of the things that keep one poor impoverished. It would cheaper to take a cab.
This is absolute nonsense. Do the math. Poor people live from week to week, paycheck to paycheck. They do not have the luxury of a $20,000+ hybrid. Cheap cars are cheap precisely because they are not the latest models or the most desirable stylings or the best in gas mileage, but for many poor people trying to save and reach the next rung on the economic ladder, it could be their best and only option.
Milton Friedman went into great depth on this subject in his books and his “Free to Choose” series on PBS. I recommend you watch it. Part 7 is the most applicable to this particular consideration, however, everyone would benefit from watching the whole series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_4vanP04I
If you have $200 a week to put in a gas tank, then you have $200 a week to make a car payment with. That is how you get a head.
The point I was making was that the money that you are putting in that gas tank is precisely what is preventing you from pulling yourself out of poverty.
The wealthy have the luxury of using their money to better themselves while the poor are forced to give it to somebody else to better themselves with.
That’s assuming it takes $200 a week in gasoline. I know of no one, even at today’s prices, who spends that per week on gasoline for one car. I drive a V8 Jaguar and a tank of gas will easily last me a week, even driving across town once a day. Your argument does not consider the upfront outlay of capital involved in a new car purchase, nor does it consider those problems that often accompany the poor, namely poor credit ratings prohibiting their ability to buy a car on credit. Your assertion that getting oneself into a car payment as a way out of poverty is an easily debunked assertion.
This is a very personal thing for me because I have been poor and know precisely how one has to struggle to get out of it. You cannot control the price of gasoline, but you CAN control how you manage your limited cash resources. In one way you are right, for a single person, a scooter or motorcycle might be a better option for transport, but if you have a family, your options might be limited to an old hooptie or a van or older suv or some other “gas guzzler”. One thing is certain, poor people rarely, if ever, have the option of purchasing a new or late model used car outright or even getting one on credit with payments. Their options are more often limited to those cars they can purchase or pay off between friends or on private contract with their limited available cash. To remove vehicles from the road which would have satisfied this market effectively drives up all prices for this sector, ensuring the already impoverished sink deeper into poverty.
Agree!
That is true. Section 8 inspects their rental property. It is the unsubsidized ones that cause the blight because the poor don’t have the leverage to force a landlord to do maintenance and they have to have a place to live so they take what they can get.
It is the slum landlords; a lot of them are from out of state investment firms that rent these properties til they can’t be rented any more and then just let them go. They got their money back a long time ago.
Anybody know why hasn’t the 3rd Ward City Councilwomen been doing any thing about this major blight problem in her ward?
Oh, I guess she is to busy meddling in the business of the other 5 city wards.
Because the Front Door Pride homes are in the 4th Ward, the home of Connie Robinson.
The 3rd Ward Councilwomen Riley also lives in her ward.
My question is why hasn’t she stood up for the working class people in her area? The answer is that she is a self serving person and cares less about how her 3rd Ward citizens living in blight.
Riley is a Communists. She is a mini Mossolini. She believes that more government will fix problems.
Ff
A communist? I don’t believe she has done a good job at all but comments like this negate anything of value that you would ever try to say on here. Get real Brent.
I don’t know her well enough to call her a communist. On her Facebook page she said she likes Paul Krugman, the economist, which tells me she is at least a Keynesian and a statist.
It’s too bad too, because I liked her no vote on the 2013 budget. This more than destroys that.
She is about to experience pushback in a big way on this, I predict.
Mr. Editor: Please remove the post made above by someone posing as Soon2B. That is not me, and you know my email address. So, check it out and remove that post. Then remove this one. Thanks.
Yeah! You got me! You know who I am now! ;>O
Well, well finally someone has finally started getting their head out of the sand about the 3rd. ward councilwoman. Notice how she always brings attention to herself during the meetings? She was elected to serve the people in the 3rd. first
I disagree with Jordan Baers assessment of the Front Door Pride area. I think it looks immeasurably better than it did 10 years ago. The few times I go there I am amazed at how much better at looks.
In the 80’s there was at least one prostitute on every street corner on 2nd St. They also hung out on Adams. There was a constant parade of Johns driving around the block to pick them up.
Where the Bokeh Lounge is now was where all the junkies back in the 60’s hung out. In fact, that’s why they made into a walkway,because it wasn’t safe to drive through there.
There is a reason that they only buy a house here and there. It’s because the City buys them at sheriffs sales and they don’t have the money to buy private property up. If one sells his house to the City then he has to find another place to live.
It’s a lot better than the mentality of out of sight out of mind that used to exist.
Jordan seems to think that we could have spent the money in a better way. He is incorrect on his assessment. The best way to spend the money…was to give it back to the taxpayers. Government programs such as this does not change a persons perception or a City’s worth or wealth.
I would ask Jordan, “Where the hell were you when Tom Barnett was proposing all of these things?” Because, Jordan was not at any of those meetings!
Ff
What happens to the poor who currently live in those areas? Is there an area designated for the city’s poor? Will they be relocated? As I understand it the goal is for young professionals to move into these areas because it’s the current trendy thing to do, with disregard for those already living there. The cost of housing will go up and therefore the working poor will no longer be able to afford to live there. What happens to them, or does no one really care? City officials might dispute this but as a thinking person I do not believe.
The young people making an attempt at “re-developing” are neither cool nor hip (accept in their own minds). Their ideas are not original or even current trends. The mayor thought bringing young people into his administration would infuse the city with energy and vitality and sometimes in works. Unfortunately wisdom wasn’t considered into the equation and therefore we are left with hyper energy without mature focus.
“What happens to the poor who currently live in those areas? Is there an area designated for the city’s poor? Will they be relocated?”
Yes, Jordan and the rest of the Evansville elitists have a nice concentration c…errr…ghett…errr….sunndy piece of real estate all lined up.
In truth, they will propose what statists always propose when they try forced gentrification – public housing. They would seek federal and state assistance in creating housing blocks where they can concentrate…errrr….collect all the single mothers and their troublesome, delinquent kids into one area that could then be surrounded and targeted by police and their drug sniffing dogs more efficiently.
As funny as that all sounds, I’m not kidding.
Again, I’ll come back to my friend Milton Friedman for a quick discussion on public housing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzT_sLgf-UQ
There’s a landlord in this town which I won’t name that will rent uninhabitable houses, no heat, running water, etc. $300/mo show up with cash no application, lease etc. Only rents to desperate people with no other option. Sometimes doesn’t even own the houses. Guys like this are what’s wrong with capitalism. Capitalism doesn’t account for human waste like this particular landlord or by the same token the thieves on Wall St. Free market economics is as much a fairy tale as the opposite Utopian type society. The truth is people are like animals and will only do what’s in their best interest. Shady used car salesmen, slumlords, insider trading, it’s all the same.
This is not a capitalist doing such things, this is a thief. This sort of crap is not capitalism, it is corruption. It was quite common in the USSR and other communist countries where there were plenty of abandoned structures to rip people off with. Capitalism breeds effort. Communism breeds corruption.
A contract among legal adults is NOT “theft”. This little diatribe tells me you haven’t the slightest CLUE what you’re talking about. Sorry to put it so starkly, but if you think “capitalism” means letting the government tell prospective signatories to a contract they can’t make said contract without first doing X,Y and Z, you are so mistaken, nay, you’re more than that…you’re mad.
I was directing the thief comment at the practice of renting out property that you do not own to unsuspecting people for cash. I stand by my comment. One who rents out something he does not own is a thief. As for the rest of your rant I have no idea what about my comment prompted it.
Haven’t you heard? You cant say THIEF in a direct way around Mr. Linzy. You have to beat around the bush and say a person with hot hands or sticky fingers or he lives by the rule of finders keepers losers weepers. Its all in the twisting of words for this particular person, right Mr. Linzy?
It should be his right to rent as much as it is the right of a lessee to refuse to rent. What if the person isn’t intending on living there? What if they just want to use it for storage, or to jam Black Sabbath songs all day and hang out?
Yes, let’s get the government involved in that…people are too stupid to think a clearly uninhabitable house without all these amenities is livable. Who knows? Maybe for their lifestyle, it’s just what the minimalist doctor ordered.
I say this without the least hint of irony or humor…what f&*^%$% business is it of yours? Or government’s?
Comments are closed.