Land-banking in Flint and elsewhere makes sense, despite Rush’s distortions

1 comment June 19th, 2009

Today I have an example of how a perfectly sensible discussion has been blown way out of proportion as it has made the rounds of the talk radio circuit.

For some time now, there’s been serious discussion among urbanologists that some of our older, industrial cities  should be downsized.

The poster child of this phenomenon is Flint, Michigan, birthplace of General Motors. Up until the 1980s, Flint was humming with multiple auto plants, GM’s engineering institute, Fisher Body and a host of GM-related industries. It was perhaps the wealthiest, happiest blue collar city in America. The population topped out at just short of 200,000.

Flint has been shrinking ever since; now there are just two GM plants left. The population is down to about 110,000, with no sign of recovery.

As a result, entire neighborhoods are abandoned because there simply are no people to live there. Rather than wish for happy days of old, serious discussion is taking place about bulldozing those vacant areas — about 40 percent of the city — and putting them in a land bank, as Flint is re-purposed for a largely post-industrial future.

The story made the media rounds last week, and Rush Limbaugh picked up on it as proof the big government liberalism has failed. He suggested all of Flint be bulldozed and  said President Obama has enlisted Genessee County Land Bank Chairman Daniel Kildee for advice on plans to shrink 50 other cities.

Not exactly true, Kildee said in an article in the Flint Journal. The land banking concept first attracted the interest of the George W. Bush administration, Kildee pointed out in the Journal story.

My point? Rush, whom I listen to frequently,  is probably the best radio broadcaster in the business, and he has an entertaining show.  But I try to be a smart listener, because I know that Rush, a neo-conservative, tends to leave out facts that get in the way of his good stories.