“Old Dog” posted this analytical comment on Mary’s post titled Here They Go Again. Please take the time to read his comment.
What he’s describing resembles a variation on “blockbusting.” The 1950’s definition of blockbusting involved profiteers starting rumors in a community that ethnic minorities would be moving in. The intent of the rumors was to cause panic among property owners and induce them to sell their properties (to the profiteers) at dramatically reduced prices.
A more modern version of blockbusting might have local government officials, possibly in collusion with would-be profiteers, allowing sections of town to deteriorate to drive property prices down. The properties would be bought up by profiteers, or the profiteers may already own immediately adjacent properties. Then the municipality’s urban renewal agency might be encouraged to pump a lot of urban renewal money (that’s public money for those who may still think it is “free money”) into infrastructure, thus driving property values back up at the expense of the public. Then the profiteers and their cronies who owned adjacent land would reap the profits resulting from increased property values and newer development.
Fortunately, nothing like that could ever happen in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho…
Bill,
Love the smiling green light bulb, are you sure in a past life you weren’t an illustrator for, “How to Manipulate Little Cities taxes for Dummies”?
Comment by old dog — April 13, 2013 @ 3:19 pm
No, I’m one of the “dummies” who consume dummy books, not write them.
Comment by Bill — April 13, 2013 @ 3:25 pm
I think Bill would be more the type to write “How to Shine A Light on Government Corruption for Dummies”.
Comment by mary — April 13, 2013 @ 3:33 pm
Nah, I’d probably be more likely to write “How to Write Dummies Books for Dummies”, ’cause I’ve had so much experience as one.
Comment by Bill — April 13, 2013 @ 3:41 pm
Sounds like we are in agreement, it’s laughable and not rocket science.
Comment by old dog — April 13, 2013 @ 5:28 pm
You are correct. It is not rocket science but the powers that be think taxpayers are idiots. even the average taxpayer can see that they are being scammed.
Comment by concerned citizen — April 13, 2013 @ 6:06 pm
Indeed, the average taxpayer can see that they are being scammed. Unfortunately, seeing and caring to do something about it are two different things.
Comment by up river — April 14, 2013 @ 1:25 pm
up river
I agree but I do believe that are some that are and wish to remain employed by the stakeholders as well.
Comment by concerned citizen — April 14, 2013 @ 1:49 pm
“A more modern version of blockbusting might have local government officials, possibly in collusion with would-be profiteers, allowing sections of town to deteriorate to drive property prices down.”
You could apply this same strategy to a Public Park just yards away from City Hall. Just look how Parks Director Extraordinaire allowed the tennis courts to disentegrate in McKeuen Park. “Golly gee whiz, they’re in such bad shape it would be more cost effective to just build a whole new park!”
Comment by CDAShenanigans — April 15, 2013 @ 9:12 am
CDAShenanigans,
Your comment was the subject matter of my post titled Planned Deterioration? on February 17, 2012, and my post titled Which City Parks Director to Believe… on March 9, 2012.
Comment by Bill — April 15, 2013 @ 9:41 am
Let us not forget the “UNDERUTILIZED” baseball field to be replaced with the ever so popular and widely played “BOCCI BALL.”
Comment by concerned citizen — April 15, 2013 @ 11:12 am
I fully understand the City’s logic. Bocce ball won’t be played as much, so the amount of underutilization by bocce ball will be dramatically less than the underutilization by baseball. Therefore, bocce ball will actually result in more use less than baseball will result in less use. That’s the same logic Congress uses in baseline budgeting to say that not taking a planned increase is actually a decrease. See? Now, don’t you feel better? (What scares the daylights out of me is that actually does make sense to me…)
Comment by Bill — April 15, 2013 @ 11:48 am
Maybe you were in DC too long, Bill. The “more use less will result in less use”…somehow it feels like a funny commercial featuring kids and their confusing logic!
Comment by mary — April 15, 2013 @ 2:39 pm