Snyder: $100M in U.S. aid for anti-blight demolition

Michigan is getting $100 million in federal aid to demolish abandoned buildings and fight blight in Detroit and four other cities, Gov. Rick Snyder said Tuesday. Snyder said the U.S. Treasury Department has approved the aid.
AP Wire
Aug 21, 2013

Detroit is getting $52.3 million, Flint $20.1 million and Saginaw 11.2 million. Pontiac is getting $3.7 million and Grand Rapids $2.5 million, while $10.2 million goes to a reserve fund for additional demolition, Snyder said.

"With these federal funds, we'll be able to launch large-scale demolition programs that strike at the blight that is weakening too many neighborhoods in these cities," the governor said in a statement. "This aggressive anti-blight effort will help stabilize neighborhoods that have been struggling for years. As the abandoned properties come down, property values will go up, and crime will go down. That will encourage the people who live in these neighborhoods to stay in their homes and be part of the revitalization of their communities."

Snyder's office said the targeted demolitions represent a major expansion of ongoing effort by the Michigan State Housing Development Authority and other state agencies to clean up blight in Michigan.

"As the abandoned properties come down, property values will go up, and crime will go down," Snyder said. "That will encourage the people who live in these neighborhoods to stay in their homes and be part of the revitalization of their communities."

Demolition work will start this month in Detroit and within several weeks in the other cities, Snyder said.

Detroit Mayor Dave Bing said he is excited about the grant and is ready to put the money to work.

"We already have identified additional areas in our blight removal plan," Bing said. "These new dollars will allow us to not only demolish dangerous vacant homes, but also commercial structures within our demonstration areas."

Bing said Detroit is on target to meet his target of knocking down 10,000 vacant structures by the end of 2013.

U.S. Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Flint, said the aid significantly boosts efforts to restore the health of Michigan cities.

"Removing blighted homes, as these federal funds will do, will help to rebuild our neighborhoods and restore property values for homeowners. I look forward to working with local officials to maximize the impact of these funds in our neighborhoods," he said in a statement. "In Congress, I will continue to push for additional federal resources for our state and our communities to help revitalize cities like Flint and Saginaw."




No Problem, We are adding 450 apartments in GH. Please send them here, we need diversity.


I have a feeling that the occupants of the vacant properties under demolition, if any, will not find their way to Grand Haven to bother you with dilution of the current racial homogeneity.


This is truly a teachable moment - a federal government that is in debt for about (as a minimum) 17 trillion dollars is going to subsidize municipalities that have been profligate for decades, by taking money from citizens from North Dakota, Texas, Utah, Nebraska, and Iowa, so those taxpayers can pay for the liberal policies that gave us Detroit, Flint, and Pontiac. Somehow, can't say why, I'd rather have my taxes pay for Grand Haven. Anyone want to tell me how I'm wrong?

Tri-cities realist

Once again you hit the nail on the head. Our "Republican" governor is quite the spender of other people's money, perhaps what some might consider a balanced moderate Republican. I'll avoid the labels, other than to say he is an over-spender.


Ah - the shadowy strains of Ronald Reagan's 'welfare queens' and those lazy unionized auto workers. What a crock! Your 'teachable moment' and TCR's plaintive cry that Gov Snyder is 'spending too much' is hypocritical and disingenuous, to say the least.

I think it very interesting that the top ten states in the Union that receive the most Federal benefits and largesse also happen to be mostly solid Red states. They are the most welfare-dependent, they benefit the most from Federal money, they have some of the highest rates of non-payment of Federal Income Taxes, when they do pay, the percentage of taxes paid to the government is far less than what they receive in benefits, and yet they are some of the most vocal in their abhorrence for government subsidies and benefits. (NM, MISS, AK, LA, WV, ND, AL, SD, VA, KY).

Tri-cities realist

How am I hypocritical? I call out big spenders in govt, regardless of party. How I am I disingenuous? I honestly believe the govt spends too much money. Please enlighten me.


Ok - give me some examples of Snyder spending too much money. Especially independent of the Republican legislature.

Tri-cities realist

Re-read this article, that was easy.


I regret you are reduced to finding "welfare queens and those lazy unionized workers" in my comment - not there. Are you projecting your own hidden concerns?


If you are honestly saying that not even a hint of welfare recipients and unionized auto workers crossed your mind when writing " municipalities that have been profligate for decades, by taking money from citizens....", I then stand corrected and apologize for the mischaracterization of your comment.

The rest of my comment stands, and I disagree with your rationalization - I don't think it comes close to understanding or accurately portraying the Detroit bankruptcy, and the events that led to it.


Apology accepted - a hint of welfare recipients and unionized auto workers never crossed my mind when writing - I was only focused on the difference between liberal, progressive policies that brought down Detroit and are bringing down other big democratic urban strongholds compared to the states I mentioned - North Dakota, Texas, Utah, Nebraska, and Iowa. There was no rationalization - I said I would prefer my tax dollars go to support Grand Haven rather than Flint - you have a problem with that?

Tri-cities realist

I'll also admit that welfare recipients and unionized workers didn't come to mind when I read your comment. What did come to mind was the ONE elected Republican in Detroit in the last 40 years. How was he able to mess up Detroit so badly? Or could it have been the Democrats? Hmm.


Did you know that the area surrounding the City of Detroit is the 5th wealthiest in the nation? Hmmmm....By your logic, those municipalities must have always been governed by Repubs. Yes! There's the answer! Thanx TCR - that was nice and muss, no fuss.


No problem. Except for the fact that the states you mention (all Red states) all happen to receive more Federal spending per dollar of taxes paid by the state, with Texas being the least amount (this might change, now that he is asking Obama for $100 million in Obamacare Medicaid money). ND=$1.68. NE=$1.10. IA=$1.10. UT=$1.07. TX=$.94 MI=$.92.

As for big democratic urban strongholds, the 15 states that receive the least amount of Federal spending per dollar of taxes paid, which range from $.93-$.61, all happen to be mostly blue, or at least purple, and contain lots of big democratic urban strongholds.


Don't worry Vlad, your money is in good hands:


Many stories today about welfare "earnors" making more money than average wage earners who are working hard.


Time go to Walmart for your cheap stuff GHJ...

Tri-cities realist

So what's the answer? Is Wal-mart supposed to increase their wages, along with their prices, such that they go out of business, with the employees then being 100% supported by the govt?


Ah! There's nothing like the sweet waft of Corporate Welfare in the morning. Let's play the 'Wink! Wink! You're Screwed' game.....First Walmart supports Obamacare; then when it becomes time to implement, they reduce employees hours to 29.95 hours, then the employee rushes out to get insurance via insurance marketplace, or, because thousands of Walmart workers make so little that they actually qualify for food stamps already, and have for years, probably will qualify for insurance under the expanded Medicaid program that covers mostly the working poor.

Game over! Taxpayers lose!

As for those Falling Prices, I have news for you. Walmart is NOT the cheapest on many things. Being a price comparison shopper, I can tell you that their marketing campaign is more successful than their prices (in many cases).

And rumor has it that their annual profits are down from $17 Billion in 2012 to around $14 Billion so far this year because many of the stores are looking neglected, dirty, shelves in disarray, inventory piling up in the back rooms - workers hours cut too much.

Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on Create a new account today to get started.