Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Cheapest Houses in America/Detroit, Starting at $1

1. The 8 Cheapest Houses in America: "Today's dilemma: A sandwich or a house. They both cost $7." (Note: 5 of the 8 cheapest houses are in Michigan.)

2. Here are 32 homes in Detroit for $500 or less, including the one above for $1

HT: Greg Allar

Update: Here's a related article and another slide show about Detroit's abandoned homes.  (HT: Dn Quiggs)

27 Comments:

At 3/16/2011 9:17 AM, Blogger W.E. Heasley said...

The house Jennifer Granholm’s built. Very nice!

Maybe Jennifer could write a research paper regarding: collectivism and housing aka “The Granholm’s Effect“.

One can only wonder if she teaching a course in “The Greater Housing Sector and Real Estate Wealth” at her new position at the University of California-Berkeley.

 
At 3/16/2011 9:53 AM, Blogger Michael Hoff said...

You'd have to pay me more than $1 to take that house.

 
At 3/16/2011 10:43 AM, Blogger Sam said...

That would be a good deal if the copper wiring and plumbing were still in the house. It isn't, of course. That is one of the first things that gets looted by the disgruntled previous owner or thieves.

 
At 3/16/2011 11:40 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

Well, the "progressives", who have controlled Detroit for more than 60 years promised affordable housing, it looks like they've delivered.

 
At 3/16/2011 11:50 AM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Free trade benefits a nation as a whole. No one said it would benefit every region or industry.

 
At 3/16/2011 12:05 PM, Blogger DnQuiggs said...

I think its a bit naive to place blame on one particular politician or party.

Here is an interesting related article:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Special-Features/Slideshow/Detroit/Slide1.aspx

 
At 3/16/2011 12:26 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Those idiots in Detroit should have figured out a long time agao the best industries to get into are defense and agriculture--constant protection and watering of federal dollars. What were they thinking?

 
At 3/16/2011 1:03 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"I think its a bit naive to place blame on one particular politician or party."

What's naive is writing a sentence like that without knowing that there has been only one political party in control of Detroit for decades. In order for there to be shared responsibility for Detroit's current plight there would have to have been shared political power - there was none. Detroit represents the predictable outcome of progressive policies. Deal with it princess.

 
At 3/16/2011 1:24 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

Liberals and the fall of Detroit

 
At 3/16/2011 2:17 PM, Blogger DnQuiggs said...

Che, putting the decline of Detroit at the feet of Granholm is naive. Also, it is appropriate to look at the decline in Detroit not as a singular event but as one that has affected cities throughout the rust belt. If you do that, you begin to look at cities that have had declines regardless of what political party they have been run by. If you want everything to fit in your nice, neat, ideological box, fine. But you'll be more ignorant for it. Topics like the decline of Detroit/the rust belt go beyond partisan politics.

 
At 3/16/2011 2:51 PM, Blogger Bloggin' Brewskie said...

No thanks. The one time I accidentally visited Detroit (I meant to hit Dearborn, but I missed the exit and had to into Detroit), I landed in a seedy neighborhood. For some reason, the image I recall the most was a car engine sitting on the street in front of the curb, next to a couch.

 
At 3/16/2011 4:45 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"For some reason, the image I recall the most was a car engine sitting on the street in front of the curb, next to a couch."

Hey, fella, are you bad mouthing my car? :-)

 
At 3/16/2011 4:47 PM, Blogger Dr. T said...

The houses may have low sales prices, but I'm certain that the cities expect to collect the unpaid property taxes from the buyers.

The cities also will expect the buyers to bring the properties up to code within a few months. If, as someone else noted, the pipes and electrical wires have been stripped out, bringing those houses up to code will cost tens of thousands of dollars. There is no free lunch.

 
At 3/16/2011 5:01 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

""Che, putting the decline of Detroit at the feet of Granholm is naive."

I could be wrong, and I hope he'll correct me if I am, but I believe Che has only discussed Detrioit, and has blamed its decline on the progressives who have held office there for the past 60 years.

Had he mentioned Granholm, I believe he would have laid blame for the decline of Michigan at the feet of Granholm.

 
At 3/16/2011 5:50 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

My brother got a house like that, cut it apart and put the pieces on trucks to move them. He ingeniously reassembled them as a very nice addition to his own house.

 
At 3/16/2011 6:51 PM, Blogger DnQuiggs said...

Very true Ron, if you follow the conversation though you will see that Che originally critiqued my response to the first post, on Granholm. That is where the reference came from.

 
At 3/16/2011 8:49 PM, Blogger W.E. Heasley said...

DnQuiggs:

Lets see, Detroit’s demise has nothing to do with the ideology deployed in that particular city over the past 50 plus years. Uh huh. Right. Sure.

Its all due to the abstract concept of “rust belt”. How convenient.

And Granholm was not the purveyor, overseer, and perpetuator of late stage collectivism.

For some odd reason Detroit just fell out of favor with the forest nymphs with their pockets full of pixie dust.

You might want to rethink your notional proposition DnQuiggs. There is an absolute mountain of empirical evidence standing in stark contrast to your notional argument.

 
At 3/17/2011 5:45 AM, Blogger geoih said...

Maybe you can purchase the title to the property for $1, but now tell us how much the city will be taxing the lucky buyer?

Any homeless person could buy this property and even if they only lived in a tent and used the house as fire wood they'd probably be better off, but they could never afford the taxes.

That is why Detroit is continuing to decay.

 
At 3/17/2011 7:13 AM, Blogger DnQuiggs said...

W.E

If you want to put words in order for my argument to fit neatly into your ideological predispositions, go ahead but you won’t be adding anything to the discussion. The “rust belt” is not an abstract concept but a reality that has led to extensive study for urban economists like Ed Glaeser. While Detroit may be one of the starkest examples of urban decline, it is hardly alone. Arguing that one political party is to blame for the economic decline of one city ignores the fact that similar declines have happened in other cities, cities with a more diverse voting record. Where is this mountain of evidence that links all of Detroit’s decline with one political party? Does this mean you honestly believe that if a different political party had been in charge in Detroit over the past 50 years that the city wouldn’t have experienced decline? If that is the case, then I feel vindicated in labeling your initial comments naïve. While it may be comforting to cling to your partisan ideology to explain the world around you, it often times will lead you to ignore any facts that conflict with that ideology.

 
At 3/17/2011 9:42 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"The “rust belt” is not an abstract concept but a reality ..."

Yes, we know, and it's a reality brought about by unionization and progressive policies.

"Arguing that one political party is to blame for the economic decline of one city ignores the fact that similar declines have happened in other cities, cities with a more diverse voting record."

Name one.

"Does this mean you honestly believe that if a different political party had been in charge in Detroit over the past 50 years that the city wouldn’t have experienced decline?"

Yes. One need only look at New York pre-Giuliani and post-Giuliani to see the positive effect that even one Republican administration can have on a progressive basket case.

"While it may be comforting to cling to your partisan ideology to explain the world around you, it often times will lead you to ignore any facts that conflict with that ideology."

You have not presented a single fact to support your arguments. For starters, try explaining how Republicans helped to screw up Detroit, since they haven't held an elected office there in more than half a century.

 
At 3/17/2011 10:27 AM, Blogger DnQuiggs said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Cleveland

During the economic stagnation of Cleveland you had a split between Democratic and Republican administrations yet the overall trend continued

 
At 3/17/2011 11:21 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 3/17/2011 11:23 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"During the economic stagnation of Cleveland you had a split between Democratic and Republican administrations ..."

According to the link you provided Republicans have helf the mayor's office for 14 of the last 70 years, hardly a "split". Got any real evidence, or are you just going to to cling to your partisan ideology?

 
At 3/17/2011 12:46 PM, Blogger DnQuiggs said...

It's been a 50/50 split for the past thirty years. It's subject to debate when these cities started to decline but you could argue that the timeframe was sometime between 1960-1972. I have no partisan ideology. In fact, that's the reason I put the post up in the first place. It is too much of an oversimplification to chalk up the decline of Detroit, Cleveland, etc to a particular political party.


It's obvious that you can't look beyond your political ideology. That's a shame because you'll never embrace the full picture. Are politicians at fault? Yes, but that's certainly not the only reason for the decline of these cities.

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/glaeser/files/disdeath.pdf

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/glaeser/files/Social_Capital.pdf

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/glaeser/files/Urban%20Economics.pdf

 
At 3/17/2011 10:59 PM, Blogger W.E. Heasley said...

DnQuiggs:


“It's obvious that you can't look beyond your political ideology. That's a shame because you'll never embrace the full picture. Are politicians at fault? Yes, but that's certainly not the only reason for the decline of these cities.”

You keep mentioning “political ideology” when in fact you have continuously defending your own collectivist in your debate points. That is, you vilify others for political ideology when in fact you merely defend your own collectivist ideology through out your debate points.

All “Che is dead” is arguing is that Detroit is basically the result, poster boy, quintessential example of collectivism. Now that Detroit is in late stage collectivism and the miserable result is for all to see…..YOU merely defend the ideology of collectivism. That somehow, some way, if others point out that collectivists, such as yourself, have been in charge of the demise and by pointing out that particular fact, then others somehow are mentioning “political ideology“.

All you offer is debate points. Che and others offer the insight that collectivism is the root cause of the demise.

 
At 3/18/2011 7:02 AM, Blogger geoih said...

Quote from DnQuiggs: "It's been a 50/50 split for the past thirty years."

You are actually claiming that Detroit has been run by Republicans half the time for the last thrity years? Coleman Young, Dennis Archer, Kwame Kilpatrick and Dave Bing, all Democrats. Republicans don't even appear on the ballot in Detroit. The actual election is just a run off contest between the two highest vote getters in the Democrat primary.

 
At 3/18/2011 7:15 AM, Blogger DnQuiggs said...

Geoih-please read the full thread and you will see that the city being discussed was Cleveland, not Detroit. W.E- please reference where I reference a collectivist ideology. I hardly think that pointing out the fact that there is a large research being done on the demise of cities like Detroit and that this research goes beyond making blanket statements regarding one political party or another. Stop trying to tell me my position; I've said nothing in this thread to state that I prefer one political ideology over another. I've merely said that this subject deserves much more thought that simply stating that the fall of Detroit can be attributed to Jennifer Granholm or any other individual politician.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home