The Disastrous Implications of Spending on Demolition

From the Recorder (City to review capital projects list):

There is also a $500,000 cost for the demolition of city-owned properties and another $100,000 for the stabilization of city-owned properties.

And here we go again with a Council bonding (ie, adding to the city’s debt) with half-million dollars toward demolition with zero dollars on programs or initiatives to create an economic environment that would avoid demolition in the first place.

I’ll keep on soapboxing until it’s more broadly understood and recognized that demolition is not a sustainable policy for the city. It’s a symptom of the lack of growth in the city and the need to spend money to drive growth versus spending money to fix the symptoms of no growth.

Here’s an alternative proposal: for every dollar spent on demolition, a quarter needs to be spent on building or creating something to drive growth.

So instead of $500K exlcusively allocated for demolition, drop the demolition budget to $375K and spend $125K on something to add to quality of life or economics in the city.

It’s insane to keep spending money on demolition while spending nothing in time or resources on growth.


You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. rogo says:

    who ‘s fault for nono demolition???????????

Leave a Reply