I live in the suburbs of Detroit... and until they start paying me to live there, I will certainly not be living in Detroit. The residential areas of that city (with a couple exceptions) are in general, bad news... a friend of mine lived in a "good area" of Detroit and his car still got broken into on a monthly basis. It is an absolute wasteland, and nothing is going to change until all of the crooked politicians are out of that city.... which I don't see happening anytime soon.

I have never been to Detroit but I have always imagined it to be exactly like the dystopia city RoboCop was set in.

@Jfielder23: The problem is that fixing the city services and infrastructure takes money...and there isn't any money.

Mind you, you couldn't pay me to live in the Detroit-area suburbs, either.

@dohtem: Sadly, its actually much much worse.

@Jfielder23: Speaking of the suburbs, what about the nice neighborhoods where the auto execs live? How are they faring?

Its hard to feel bad for the speculators when the winning bid was 15k, seems like a down payment alone on an avg house.

But he was quickly outbid. An unidentified investor at the front of the room who had scooped up several dozen properties took the home Wallace wanted for about $15,000.

I want to go visit Detroit but I don't think I'll do that alone or during the cold months.
Easy solution to the "bad" neighborhoods. Buy all the houses, I know I would of if I knew about the auction. Land is land no matter where it is, and a friend of mine said "god ain't making anymore of it". Have enough houses in an area you can make your own nice area for people to live.

Consumerist, in the joy of piling on for a Detroit-bashing fest, apparently didn't read all the way through the article.

The real story isn't that lots went unsold. It's that people who wanted to buy homes to live in were being outbid and pushed aside in favor of speculators. You know, like the ones who got the properties in arrears in the first place.

A lot of Detroit's problems are actually due to speculators. It's hard to have urban renewal when large chunks of property are owned by speculators, none of whom want to put any money in to fix up their derelict buildings, and none of whom want to be the person who sold out at the bottom of the market. This has been true for years.

@dohtem: Detroit is weird. It has some pretty nice areas -- like the area immediately around the art museum -- but a block or two away you're somewhere that looks like a demilitarized zone.

@Hitchcock: At least in Robocop there was OCP to try and keep the peace. That city has been a mess for as long as I can remember. About time to nuke the site from orbit.

Kansas City just passed an ordinance where if the home isn't taken care of the courts can give them the property.

Speculators ruin homes. I say Habitat for Humanity (or similar groups) can have them if they don't want to care for them.

@mythago: Are you for real?

My post is only two sentences long, and the second sentence is all about that. May I suggest that in the heat of piling on the Consumerist for doing something that pissed you off, you didn't bother to read the post all the way through?

@Jfielder23: Dude, any urban area where you park your car on the street, I'd be surprised if it got broken into less than monthly. In Detroit, I'd be happy if I came out to get in my car and it wasn't actually on fire.

@montusama: There's no shortage of land in crappy areas. God doesn't need to make any more of it.

@Orv: That's happening where I live as well. On one hand, I can't fault them. It is just good business sense. Buy low, hold, sell high. On the other hand, I think they are scum. They have no interest in the development of the city and can hold projects back for years. Just as long as their property values rise and they are ready to sell.

The sale should have been limited to people who planned to LIVE in these homes and fix them up to code. Selling too people who don't plan to invest in the community is a waste. It's silly for city's to have rules about only hiring city residents for city jobs with the lame excuse that only city residents truly care about said city and then turn around and sell these houses to non-residents for a song.

@dilbert69:

How would I buy some of this "crappy" land.

@TheOrtega:

I disagree, for me I would tear the houses done and probably put a garden there or something, so I could live where I live and not lower the land of what I bought.

@montusama: Well, the population of the Dakotas is declining, I'm sure you can find some deals there.

As just noted, Detroit has some deals if you like to own worthless land that goes sideways in value.

I think there are parts of the Alaska frontier where you can still gain title to land just by living on it long enough...

When the temperature hits 20F in Dallas, the crime rate drops to zero.

@TheOrtega: The devil himself could have come with cash and Detroit would have taken it. I think they stopped being picky a long time ago.

@montusama: Except he is...but only in areas with an active volcano..like Hawaii.

@dohtem: The whole's state's bleeding. The suburbs are finding out that Detroit is actually part of their economy, rather than merely something about which to make veiled racist comments.

@TheOrtega: Would it be possible/legal to insert a clause that you could only purchase one of these homes if you planned to make it your primary residence or that speculators could only purchase property if no one else was interested in purchasing as a primary residence?
It's a little big brother but I think it is a potential solution - it's true that people who own the home and have a stake in the neighborhood will be more beneficial to the city.

@cowboyesfan: I'm pretty sure people commit crimes indoors.

@Chris Walters: May I suggest that I did read your post all the way through, after first reading your headline?

@Orv: And who don't bother to maintain the property. Then the shell corporation that bought it goes bankrupt or fails to pay taxes, the property reverts to the city, rinse and repeat.

Every Thanksgiving America eats turkey and watches the worst team in sports lose in the worst city.

[www.theonion.com]

If the city wasn't just trying to collect what it could of outstanding tax liabilities, it could have done an urban homesteading scenario where people are given the houses either free or for a nominal payment, but must agree to spend $X in repairs and refurbishments, and live in the house for at least some period. If there are any banks in the city that have any civic responsibility, they would make home improvement loans available which, by definition, would constitute a first mortgage. Everyone wins but it takes a little time and some guts on the part of the politicians.

@lmarconi: Who would want to buy such a house as a primary residence? If you want to sell later you might need to wait years and accept half of what a speculator would pay.

The problem is with these kind of auctions, whoever buys the house owes whatever back taxes are on it. So even a $500 house may have thousands of dollars owed upon it, which probably is one of the many factors of people not wanting these homes. I don't understand why they let the taxes slide (because I'm sure the time spent tracking down the old owners is just a waste at this point) just to get people back into the neighborhood, fixing up the houses, and actually paying current taxes on them.

@mbz32190: whoops, meant to say why don't they let the taxes slide

@dohtem: You know, that makes so much sense. I can't believe I hadn't thought of it before.

I'm confused. The title is 'nobody wants to buy Detroit', but the article is about those who want to buy a home being denied the opportunity.
If the houses sold to people that would actually live there, and... ya know, be part of the community, pay for local goods and services, and other such activities that benefit the community, than Detroit might brighten up a little. Tisk tisk.

@Quatre707: I'm pretty sure I disagree with both you and Mythago on this, but in the absence of an official copy editor, I'm going to let the comments rule. I've updated the headline.

@mythago: you failed at reading!

@dilbert69: that's funny. heart.

This is why I hate cities. That and they smell usually.

@dohtem:

What detroit needs is an ED-209 to clean up the streets

@H3ion:

Banks with civic responsibility? (giggle)...

@mbz32190:

The truly sad part is most of the homes were once very beautiful, but after many years of neglect, they would cost far too much to rehab. Just a couple weeks ago, I tooled down East Grand to go to Belle Isle. The homes on that final stretch were majestic once upon a time, and there are a few hold outs, but for the most part it's just severe decay.

@Jfielder23: They need to do what they did in parts of Baltimore several years ago. The city just needs to give the property away for next to nothing (enough money to cover the cost of the paperwork/deeds etc.)but require that the purchasers stay in the houses and fix them up. This will in turn revive an entire neighbiorhood, increase property assesments and increase tax revenue.

You can also work out special grants and loans for businesses to invest and improve in their businesses (which will inturn encourage growth of residental areas and increase taxes.

@H3ion: Id say $500 is a pretty nominal payment for a house...the one guy is pissed becasue he got outbid, the high bid was 15k. 15k is barely a downpayment where im from.

What will happen to Detroit? Can a city actually die? As in, become almost entirely deserted, a dystopian mangle of nonfunctioning utilities and abandoned lurking houses? With lawless vagrants fighting over its remnants?

Nah, that was just my screenplay concept. ;-)

@dohtem: Most cities 10 miles north of 8 Mile are still pretty decent as long as you stay away from Mount Clemens.

@johnarlington: Dude, ED-209 was a failure. It would just go around mindlessly killing... oh, wait.

Yes, you are right. Detroit needs ED-209.

Ever been to Flint?

@Rachacha: After seeing other news stories about some of these old large homes being practically given away if someone would live in them we had one of those "what if" discussions. Even with self sustaining water, sewer, power and fortress type physical security it would just suck. You could set up something livable for a house or a cluster of homes. But you would still have to leave to go places. It sounds like it would be like living in a Mad Max movie.

@mythago: In which case I think "suggesting" isn't working out. Sometimes beating around the bush doesn't work and you need a clue-by-four.