[Re]clamation: A Collection of Legislative Architectures

Rec·la·ma·tion

1. The process of claiming something back or of reasserting a right

2. The attempt to make land suitable for building or farming

3. The act of returning something to a former, better state.

ReCla·ma·tion

1. “again” or “again and again” to indicate repetition

2. “anew”, “once more” also conveying the notion of “undoing”

1. An exclamation; a crying-out or call.

2. A call to action to a populace

ABSTRACT

Keywords

[Cruel Optimism, Counter-Catalog, Procedurally Generated, Vacancy, Self Starter, Beauracratic]

This publication aims to challenge the current model of the urban self-starter as the go-to method for urban regeneration for both Detroit designers and lawmakers. Through the co-opting of the DIY catalog model, it exists as a counter-catalog that instead of directing the individual to solve their own challenges, redirects the target audience to Detroit lawmakers with a catalog of proposed legal options and their subsequent built imaginaries. In creating and disseminating this catalog, the goal is to direct and distill the voices of the countless individuals working on these issues into demands pointed at those with the agency to address them through new subversive legislature.

There is a level of cruel optimism embedded in the narratives pushed by Detroit city leaders and proponents of the DIY. Publications like Stewart Brand’s Whole Earth Catalog posit that the best way to improve continued conditions of inequity, scarcity, and decay is for residents to help themselves. Instead of standing outside of the collective to voice how the individual can rectify their own situation, we should be standing beside them speaking at city officials on the type of subversive future that breaks this cycle of decline.

This publication stands as one collected and curated physical catalog for the city of Detroit. Inside is a compilation of imagined futures as well as the procedurally generated legal policies that generate new systems of urban renewal. Each approach diagrams out one possible detangling of the bureaucratic structure that continues to produce vacancy in the city of Detroit today. Through both physical print and digital interactives, these proposed imaginaries will become tangible and lived in. Ultimately, this publication will make clear to those planning Detroit’s future what possibilities exist beyond the normative, and what they can specifically do to make them reality.

METHODOLOGY

The traditional model of proposed regeneration within urban environments like Detroit comes from two directions: either from lawmakers or from outside designers. The first tires to charge the populace, through initiatives and legislatures, to work together to solve the issues facing their neighborhoods themselves . The second comes from outside the municipality to propose and build installations which work to address these same issues and hand off care of said space to the community. Both of these models of improvement share a similar formula: an entity from outside of the community informs the community what they should do to help themselves.

Pulling on this same tradition of the “do it yourself” or DIY, we considered if there was a way to reverse this system so that the residents and their community groups could work in conjunction with designers to propose their own legislatures and policies to be presented to Detroit city lawmakers. Thus giving those board members no excuse on knowing what options exist to help the city.

The system of writing and proposing legal policy is, however an opaque one, and understanding the legal language or possible outcome of any one piece is beyond the grasp of both resident and most architect. This is why this program adopts the new and rising systems of text based artificial intelligence. Through the intentional craft of prompts that reflect the wishes of both the populace and their prominent community groups, we are able to mass produce and curate ballot-ready proposals for the city. This then allows us the time to break down, reinterpret, and visualize these policies so they are not only clear and engaging to lawmakers, but to the individuals that are affected by them in the city as well.

CURRENT MODEL PROPOSED MODEL

EXISTING MODELS

Whole Earth Catalog

Stewart Brand

An American counterculture magazine popular in the 70s that focused on self-sufficiency, ecology, alternative education, and pioneered the “do it yourself” (DIY) model of problem solving.

From Fallow

Jill Desamini

At the widest city wide and civic scale, Desimini posits the need for addressing these vacant urban lots, by creating a “curated [a] collection of 100 ideas for abandoned properties” that look beyond the history and precedent of the issue.

The Available City

David Brown

This catalogue of community first rather than system first interventions brought together over a dozen designers to work together with local residents to develop vacant spaces into projects that address issues of inequality, sustainability, and justice.

The Available City

David Brown

One of the leading community groups raising up the voices of Detroit city residents, DFC has been one of the most direct and informative initiatives trying to improve the quality of life for all residents through their strategic framework

POLICY #1: Transit-Oriented Communities Program Legalese

Section 1. Purpose

The Transit-Oriented Communities Program is designed to promote the development of mixed-income housing projects in the City of Detroit while reducing reliance on single-occupancy vehicles. The program aims to encourage residential developers to build housing developments without the requirement for on-site surface parking, provided that their development is within a quarter mile of mass transit, such as the Q-line or bus lines, and they provide substantial on-site covered bike parking for residents.

Section 2. Policy

The City of Detroit hereby establishes a Transit-Oriented Communities Program (“Program”) to promote the development of mixed-income housing projects that are located within a quarter mile of mass transit and offer substantial on-site covered bike parking for residents.

Residential developers who participate in the Program shall be exempt from the requirement to provide on-site surface parking for their developments, subject to the following conditions:

1. The development must be located within a quarter mile of a mass transit station or bus stop, as determined by the City.

2. The development must provide substantial on-site covered bike parking for residents, with a minimum of one secure bike parking space per unit.

3. The development must be a mixed-income development, with at least 20% of the units designated as affordable housing at 80%, 60%, and 30% AMI.

Developers who participate in the Program shall submit a transportation demand management plan as part of their development proposal. This plan shall identify strategies for reducing reliance on single-occupancy vehicles, such as providing incentives for public transportation use, offering car-sharing options, or providing bike-sharing services.

The City shall prioritize Program projects in its review and approval process for development proposals, and shall provide technical assistance to developers to ensure compliance with the requirements of the program.

The City shall monitor the effectiveness of the Program in promoting the development of mixed-income housing and reducing reliance on single-occupancy vehicles, and shall provide an annual report to the public on the program’s progress.

Section 3. Definitions

1. “Affordable housing” means housing that is affordable to households with incomes at or below 80%, 60%, and 30% of the area median income (AMI), as determined by the City.

2. “Mass transit” means public transportation that is operated by a public transit agency, including but not limited to bus, rail, or light rail service.

3. “Mixed-income development” means a residential development that includes units designated as affordable housing at 80%, 60%, and 30% of the AMI.

4. “Single-occupancy vehicle” means a motor vehicle that is occupied by only one person.

5. . “Transportation Demand and Management Plan ” means a plan submitted by a developer that identifies strategies for reducing reliance on singleoccupancy vehicles, such as providing incentives for public transportation use, offering car-sharing options, or providing bike-sharing services.

Section 4. Methodology

The Transit-Oriented Communities Program will be implemented through the following methodology:

1. Program Guidelines: The Department of Housing and Revitalization will develop program guidelines that specify the eligibility requirements, application procedures, and review criteria for the Program. The guidelines shall be consistent with the provisions of this policy and shall be made available to the public.

2. Application Process: Developers who wish to participate in the Program shall submit an application to the Department of Housing and Revitalization. The application shall include a transportation demand management plan, a description of the proposed development, and any other information required by the Department.

3. Review and Approval: The Department of Housing and Revitalization shall review each application to determine whether the proposed development meets the eligibility requirements and complies with the provisions of this policy. The Department shall provide technical assistance to developers as needed to ensure compliance with the Program requirements.

4. Monitoring and Compliance: The Department of Housing and Revitalization shall monitor the progress of each Program project and shall ensure that developers comply with the requirements of the Program. The Department shall have the authority to impose sanctions, including revocation of Program eligibility, for noncompliance with the Program requirements.

5. Reporting: The Department of Housing and Revitalization shall prepare an annual report on the Program’s progress and shall make the report available to the public. The report shall include information on the number and type of Program projects, the number of affordable housing units created, the reduction in single-occupancy vehicle trips, and other relevant information.

The City of Detroit is committed to transparency and accountability in the implementation of the TransitOriented Communities Program. The Department of Housing and Revitalization shall provide regular updates to the City Council and the public on the Program’s progress and shall seek input from stakeholders on ways to improve the Program’s effectiveness.

Section 5. Implementation

This policy shall take effect immediately upon approval by the City Council. The Department of Housing and Revitalization (“Department”) shall be responsible for implementing and administering the Program, including establishing program guidelines, reviewing and approving development proposals, and monitoring program compliance. The Department shall have the authority to promulgate regulations and procedures as necessary to carry out the provisions of this policy.

Section 6: Administration

The Transit-Oriented Communities Program will be administered by the Department of Housing and Revitalization. The Department will review applications from developers and make recommendations to the City Council for approval. Developers will be required to submit a site plan, parking demand analysis, and affordable housing plan with their application.

Section 7. Severability

If any provision of this policy is held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall not be affected and shall continue to be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.

Section 8: Review and Evaluation

The Department of Housing and Revitalization will periodically review and evaluate the Transit-Oriented Communities Program to ensure it is achieving its goals. The results of the evaluation will be used to inform any necessary updates to the policy.

Section 9. Effective Date

This policy shall take effect immediately upon approval by the City Council and shall remain in effect until amended or rescinded by the City Council.

Section 10. Conclusion

The Transit-Oriented Communities Program represents a significant step forward in promoting sustainable development in the City of Detroit. By encouraging mixedincome housing projects located within close proximity to mass transit and promoting the use of alternative transportation methods, the program will help reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, and increase access to affordable housing for residents of all income levels.

The City of Detroit recognizes the importance of providing affordable housing options to its residents and is committed to promoting sustainable development practices that support economic growth, environmental sustainability, and social equity. The Transit-Oriented Communities Program is a critical tool in achieving these goals and is expected to have a positive impact on the city’s future.

The City Council hereby approves this policy and directs the Department of Housing and Revitalization to take all necessary steps to implement the Transit-Oriented Communities Program in accordance with the provisions outlined herein. The City looks forward to working with developers and other stakeholders to promote sustainable development and expand access to affordable housing in Detroit.

[ChatGPT: Please write a governmental policy or bill for the city of Detroit titled the “Transit-Oriented Communities program.” It would allow residential developers to build new housing developments without the requirement for on site surface parking. This will be allowed as long as their development is within a quarter mile of mass transit (Q-line, bus, etc.), their development is a mixed-income development (including 80%, 60%, and 30% AMI costed units), and they provide substantial on site covered bike parking for residents. ]

Redefinition

Though Detroit is a city built on the construction and proliferation of the automobile, its continued reliance on it for the entirety of the transportation system continues to cause environmental damage. With a lack of public transport, one rider vehicles perpetuate the suburban commuter economic system.

While not common, there are still some forms of public transportation within Detroit city limits. Options such as the Smart Bus system, Q-Line trolley, and People Mover rail all currently have primary use stations scattered around the city. Through these incentives, the hope is that developers will now advocate for more epicenters for use across the city to gain the benefits presented

Normally, developers see affordable housing units as a minimum requirement to be met and forgotten. By having a gradient of income level housing we can assure a more diverse set of financial situations not only within the same development but across the city as well.

Affordable for some does not mean affordable for all. While the city currently has a mandate for all new multi-family housing projects to have a set percentage of “affordable housing” units, this set cost is disproportionately measured using surrounding area incomes. Normally pricing out most city residents regardless

It is not just enough to propose new formats of transportation equality as these decisions need to be based in fact with clear points of completion. This helps move projects focus away from installing a single bus stop to more moderns forms of transportation assistance proven to be helpful in other municipalities.

1(a) Single Occupancy Vehicle

1(b) Mass Transit Station

1(c) Mixed Income

1(d) Affordable Housing

1(e) Transportation Demand and Management

1(f) Application Process

It is important that not only is the letter of these laws applied, but the spirit of them as well. By putting projects who wish to apply these benefits through an approval process (like any other subsidy or large development) headed by knowledgeable lawmakers in the city, we can be assured that the full extent of the bill is carried out.

1(g) Technical Assistance

New policy is often extremely opaque, even for the entities that work with it often. The only way entities will ever apply for the use of voluntary legislature like this is if they fully understand it. By providing essential information and descriptions (like those provided here) it allows any project big or small to follow guidelines

1(h) Program Progress

Projects evolve over time much the same way the city does, and it is imperative the we ensure that the guidelines set up continue to function past their creation. Through these reports we can track not only how effective this bill is, but how the city has been affected by it

Department of Housing and Revitalization: one of the many departments working on creating equitable affordable housing for all within the city, they are know for being some of the most on the ground in neighborhoods by leveraging public and private needs

1(j) Plans and Analyses

Site plan, parking demand analysis, and affordable housing plan: by requiring these documents we can ensure and dictate intentionality in the projects that are allowed in the city .

1(i) DoHR

1(k) Congestion and Air Quality

It is not hard to imagine, but the more individuals who have the affordable opportunity to take public transportation to and from work, the less emissions we have in the air, the less wear we have on our roads to pay off, and the quicker we get to our destinations without traffic on local freeways.

1(l) Social Equity

Refers to the concept of fairness, justice, and equality in the distribution of resources, opportunities, and benefits within a society or community. It emphasizes the need to address historical, systemic, and structural disparities and discrimination that impact marginalized or vulnerable groups

1(m) Developers & Shareholders

Developers are not the only individuals that have fiscal interest in building in Detroit as large corporations continue to carve out their own portions of Detroit realestate. If we cannot prevent the city from being bought, we can at the very least ensure that it is being used correctly

Current Parking Requirements

Adjacency of Residential to Pollution

POLICY #2: Detroit Community Reclaimed Structures Act

Legalese

Purpose:

To incentivize Detroit residents to build structures for community use on vacant city-owned land using reclaimed materials from local Detroit reclamation and reseller initiatives, providing tax breaks and subsidies for construction while ensuring the land cannot be bought or sold for 5 years after the project’s completion.

Section 1: Definitions

1. “Reclaimed materials” refers to any building materials that are salvaged or reused from existing structures or waste materials.

2. “Local Detroit reclamation and reseller initiatives” refer to any local organizations or businesses that specialize in collecting, processing, and selling reclaimed building materials.

3. “Community use” refers to any building that is intended for public use, such as a community garden, park, or gathering space.

4. “City-owned land” refers to any land owned by the City of Detroit that is currently vacant and has not been designated for another specific use.

Section 2: Tax Breaks

1. Eligible applicants shall receive a tax break for the duration of the program established by this Act for the vacant city-owned land used for the construction of the community structure.

2. Eligible applicants shall receive a subsidy of up to 50% of the total cost of construction for the community structure, with a maximum subsidy amount of $50,000 per project.

3. The City of Detroit may establish a fund to finance the subsidies provided by this Act, which shall be administered by a designated City agency or department.

4. All applicants receiving subsidies under this Act shall be required to comply with all applicable City and State laws and regulations related to the construction and maintenance of the community structure, including but not limited to building codes, zoning ordinances, and safety standards.

Section 3: Subsidies for Construction

1. Detroit residents who participate in this program will receive a subsidy of up to 75% of the construction costs of their project, provided that at least 50% of the building materials used are reclaimed materials from local Detroit reclamation and reseller initiatives.

2. The subsidy will be paid out in installments based on the progress of the construction, with the final payment being made upon completion of the project.

3. The total amount of subsidies available for this program will be determined by the Detroit City Council in each fiscal year.

Section 4: Land-Use Restrictions

1. The land used for the project cannot be bought or sold, transferred, or leased to any party for any purpose for a period of five years after the completion of the project, except as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

2. The land must be used exclusively for community purposes for a minimum of five years following the completion of the project. Community use includes, but is not limited to, public parks, community gardens, playgrounds, or other community spaces intended for public use.

3. In the event of an unforeseen or uncontrollable circumstance, such as a natural disaster, that renders the community structure unusable for community purposes, the City of Detroit may allow for the sale or transfer of the land to another party for a use that is consistent with the community spirit and goals of this program.

4. The City of Detroit reserves the right to monitor the use of the land for the duration of the five-year period to ensure compliance with the provisions of this section.

5. The City of Detroit shall not have the authority to establish additional rules and regulations related to the land-use restrictions set forth in this section, as needed, to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Act.

Section 5: Eligibility Requirements

1. Detroit residents who wish to participate in this program must submit a proposal for their project to the City of Detroit for approval.

2. The proposal must include a detailed plan for the use of reclaimed materials from local Detroit reclamation and reseller initiatives.

3. The proposal must include a detailed plan for the construction of a building for community use on the vacant city-owned land.

4. The proposal must include a detailed plan for the maintenance and upkeep of the building and the surrounding area after the completion of the project.

5. The City of Detroit will review and approve proposals based on their compliance with the provisions of this Act.

Section 6: Implementation

1. The Detroit City Council will be responsible for implementing this program and may adopt any necessary rules or regulations to carry out the purposes of this Act.

2. The Detroit Department of Buildings, Safety Engineering, and Environmental Department will be responsible for reviewing proposals and inspecting projects for compliance with building codes and environmental regulations.

3. The Detroit Department of Neighborhoods will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the landuse restrictions outlined in Section 4.

Section 7: Reporting Requirements

1. The Detroit City Council will submit an annual report to the public detailing the progress and outcomes of this program.

2. The report will include the number and location of projects completed, the total cost of subsidies provided, the amount of tax revenue lost due to the tax breaks provided, the amount of reclaimed materials used, and the impact of the program on the community.

3. The report will also include any recommendations for improving or expanding the program, based on the outcomes of the previous year.

4. The first report will be due one year after the adoption of this Act, and subsequent reports will be due on the same date each year thereafter.

Section 8: Sunset Provision

This program will automatically expire 10 years after the adoption of this Act, unless extended by the Detroit City Council.

Section 9: Severability

If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Section 10: Effective Date

This Act shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the Detroit City Council.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this proposed bill is designed to incentivize Detroit residents to build structures for community use out of reclaimed materials on vacant city-owned land. By providing tax breaks for the land in question and subsidies for construction, the bill aims to encourage community members to use their creativity and resources to contribute to the betterment of their neighborhoods.

Additionally, the requirement that the materials used come from local Detroit reclamation and reseller initiatives ensures that the program benefits both the community and local businesses. By stipulating that a percentage of the structure must be made of reclaimed materials to qualify for the program, this bill also promotes sustainability and environmental consciousness.

Furthermore, the assurance that the land cannot be bought or sold for 5 years after the completion of the project helps to ensure that the structures built serve a long-term community purpose. The reporting requirements and sunset provision provide transparency and accountability, allowing for regular evaluation and potential adjustments to the program.

Overall, the passing of this bill could help to revitalize vacant land in Detroit, foster community engagement, and promote sustainable practices.

[ChatGPT: Propose a bill that incentivizes Detroit Residents to build structures for community use out of reclaimed materials on vacant city owned land. It should provide tax breaks for the land in question, subsidies for construction of the structures, and an assurance that the land cannot be bought or sold for 5 years after the completion of the project. It should also have a requirement that the materials be from local Detroit reclamation and reseller initiatives, and a percentage of the structure must be made of said materials to qualify for the program. ]

Redefinition 2(a) Incentivize 2(b) Reclaimed Materials

Much of what the city, and in particular its land bank, has complained about is the lack of individuals purchasing back the land they took from their neighbors. If through policy we can create situations both physically and politically that are beneficial for the collective to work a space above a developer, the people will come.

For several years now the city of Detroit has made a statement out of the destruction of the residential built environment. Other initiatives have elected to preserve the materials and fixtures contained within these spaces of domesticity, and are offering ways to reintegrate them back into the built environment.

2(c) Reseller Initiatives

Companies like the “Detroit Architectural Salvage Warehouse” has worked with community leaders to not only provide supplies for building but also the necessary knowledge and firsthand knowledge to work with them

Much of the land that the city “owned” is not done so rightfully. These lands were once homes and still retain those memories and community sense. Forced fiscal hardship and the creation of policies that make foreclosure profitable for others is not a model of success

Funds are always a question when these types of initiatives are started. This is where the reexamination of Detroit budgeting as a whole regarding both fiscality and effectiveness.

2(d) City Owned Land

4(e) Finance Fund

2(i) Land Use Restrictions

Detroit like many a municipality has a general fun of tax dollars and donations. While lately much of this has been divided into maintaining the status quo within much of the city, a considerable amount of it has been given either through tax breaks or other means to downtown developments. It is time this shifts to the residents.

Models of individual ownership of resources like land and the idea of property lead to the self fulfilling prophecy of self situational improvement. For resources like this that is shared collectively and worked collectively, it only makes sense to build new models to be owned collectively

“Public use” is a terminology with a considerable amount of gray understanding. What is integral here is that not one individual benefits from the space extensively more than another, and one individual does not reap considerable financial benefit from its use.

Conditions like zoning and “by right” usages severely limit what a community can create within its imagination and bounds. While much of the land within Detroit has been reaped of its built environment, the land is still prohibitive in its residential zoning

2(j) Detailed Plans

Reclaimed materials are not just any other form of lowhigh quality construction material, and their effective use needs to be planned out ahead of time with space for adjustment based on the members themselves

2(f) Paid Subsidy

2(g) Sold, Transfered, or Leased

2(h) Public Use

2(k) Detroit Department of Neighborhoods

DON provides a direct link between the City of Detroit and block clubs, community groups, business owners, faith and school leaders, and everyday residents. While other departments within Detroit legislative government are concerned with balancing scalability and fiscality, they are embedded in the community and their needs

2(l) Improving or Expanding

This type of clause insures that as times move on and context evolves that this program will as well. As components are completed they are not ticked off a list, but rather they are rewritten to continue to iterate and improve

2(m) Sustainable Practices

Sustainability is a term that has become a buzzword in the last decade. In this situation, it refers to the ensuring that materials in the built world do not sit and rot or fall into landfills to wait for eternity.

Ontology of Entities

Traditional Model

Proposed Model

POLICY #1

Built Imaginaries

Current Standing Water & Dumping

Current Empty Corner Lot

Proposed Community Constructed Space

Flexible Use Space from Reclaimed Material

POLICY #3: Blue Infrastructure Regeneration Act Legalese

Section 1: Purpose

The purpose of this ordinance is to establish a program that transforms vacant areas within Detroit through the use of blue and green infrastructure, with a focus on maximizing stormwater runoff reductions through the collection and reuse of land for retention in high vacancy areas. The program will also prioritize stabilizing neighborhoods through the use of city-owned land to create attractive, productive uses for these sites, many of which can be maintained by neighborhood organizations, block groups, or individual homeowners. Additionally, the program aims to enhance the quality of life and attractiveness of the city by creating carbon forests as industry buffers between factory sites and residential areas to improve air quality. Finally, the program will ensure that the uses created under the program are seen as permanent and non-transferable to developers.

Section 2. Definitions

1. “Vacant areas” refers to any lots or land within the city of Detroit that have been unused or abandoned for an extended period of time.

2. “Blue infrastructure” means natural or artificial water systems, including but not limited to wetlands, ponds, lakes, and rivers.

3. “Green infrastructure” means natural or artificial green spaces, including but not limited to parks, gardens, and green roofs.

4. “Carbon forest” means a forest designed to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, mitigate air pollution, and enhance biodiversity.

5. “Retention” means the process of holding stormwater on or near the surface for a certain period of time, allowing it to infiltrate the soil and recharge groundwater.

Section 3. Implementation

1. The program shall be implemented by the Department of Water and Sewerage and the Department of Parks and Recreation, in collaboration with the Department of Planning and Development and other relevant city agencies.

2. The program shall prioritize the following goals:

(a) Maximizing stormwater runoff reductions through the collection and reuse of land for retention in high vacancy areas;

(b) Stabilizing neighborhoods through the use of city-owned land to create attractive, productive uses for these sites, many of which can be maintained by neighborhood organizations, block groups, or individual homeowners;

3. Enhancing the quality of life and attractiveness of the city by creating carbon forests as industry buffers between factory sites and residential areas to improve air quality;

4. Ensuring that the uses created under the program are seen as permanent and non-transferable to developers.

5. To achieve these goals, the program will incorporate the following initiatives:

(a) Developing and implementing a comprehensive stormwater management plan that identifies the most appropriate blue and green infrastructure measures for each site;

(b) Collaborating with neighborhood organizations, block groups, and individual homeowners to identify the most suitable uses for each site, such as community gardens, parks, and playgrounds;

(c) Providing technical assistance and funding to support the implementation of green infrastructure projects, including the creation of rain gardens, bioswales, and green roofs;

(d) Establishing a carbon forest program that targets areas adjacent to factories, highways, and other sources of air pollution, using a variety of native tree species;

4. Establishing a community-based stewardship program that engages residents in the maintenance and upkeep of green infrastructure projects, including training, education, and outreach efforts;

5. Ensuring that the program is equitable and accessible to all Detroit residents, regardless of their income, race, or neighborhood.

Section 4. Funding

1. The program shall be funded through a combination of city funds and grants from federal, state, and private sources.

2. The Department of Water and Sewerage shall allocate a portion of its budget to fund the stormwater retention infrastructure component of the program.

3. The Department of Parks and Recreation shall allocate a portion of its budget to fund the green infrastructure component of the program.

4. The Department of Planning and Development shall seek grants and other sources of funding to support the implementation of the program.

5. The program may also receive funding from private sources, including corporations, foundations, and other entities interested in supporting sustainable development in Detroit.

Section 5. Permanent Uses

1. All uses created under the program shall be seen as permanent and non-transferable to developers. This

means that once the land is transformed into blue or green infrastructure or carbon forest, it cannot be sold or leased to private developers for any other purpose.

2. This provision is intended to ensure that the program’s benefits are long-lasting and accessible to all Detroit residents, regardless of changes in the real estate market or economic conditions.

Section 6: Legal Requirements

1. All blue and green infrastructure projects developed and implemented by the Program shall comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and ordinances.

2. The Program shall comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and ordinances relating to the use of city-owned land.

3. The Program shall prioritize the use of minorityowned, women-owned, and locally-owned businesses in the implementation of blue and green infrastructure projects.

Section 7: Severability

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.

Section 8: Sunset

This program shall remain in effect until the City determines that the Program’s objectives have been achieved.

Section 9. Effective Date

This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the Detroit City Council and approval by the Mayor.

Section 10. Conclusion

The Detroit Blue and Green Infrastructure Program proposes a comprehensive plan to transform vacant areas in Detroit into productive and sustainable spaces. By implementing blue and green infrastructure, stabilizing neighborhoods, and planting carbon forests, the program aims to improve air quality, reduce stormwater runoff, and enhance the quality of life and attractiveness of the city. The Program also prioritizes compliance with applicable laws and regulations and inclusion of minorityowned, women-owned, and locally-owned businesses in implementation.

[ChatGPT: Propose a new bill that initiates and funds a program that looks to transform largely vacant areas within Detroit through blue and green infrastructure. It should focus on maximizing stormwater runoff reductions through the collection and reuse of land for retention in high vacancy areas. It should also work on stabilizing neighborhoods through the use of city owned land to create attractive, productive uses for these sites, many of which can be maintained by neighborhood organizations, block groups, or individual homeowners. There should also be a section that details the inclusion of carbon forests as industry buffers between factory sites and residential areas which can improve air quality and enhance the quality of life and attractiveness of the city. Once placed into service for new infrastructure, these uses should be seen as permanent ones and non-transferable to developers. Make it very specific and include more legal language so it is longer and able to be submitted to Detroit city council for review. ]

Detroit as a city has long been plagued by its failing water infrastructure. Due to its combined sewage system, drains and water transports systems easily overflow with water and refuse during even slight rains. That paired with a high percentage of impermeable surfaces in the city leads to massive runoff to city systems

Not to be confused with its often talked about green counterpart, blue infrastructure is the planed and cultivated systems of water management within the city beyond the pipes. The more we cultivate spaces of ecology and nature, the more they can absorb the excess water that would normally strain the traditional system

Tied directly with the fluid systems of blue infrastructure, green infrastructure consists of the space that cities already want to support healthy lifestyle: green spaces for citizens to enjoy nature. In urban areas like Detroit swimming in asphalt, they are even more integral

The local governmental body in charge of maintaining the already heavily degraded water system of the city. Dealt a bad hand to begin with, its continued efforts to just patch what we currently have have proven limited and thus the time to turn to new and inventive ways to work beyond the physical infrastructure is now.

Much of the land that the city “owned” is not done so rightfully. These lands were once homes and still retain those memories and community sense. Forced fiscal hardship and the creation of policies that make foreclosure profitable for others is not a model of success

3(a) Stormwater Runoff

3(b) Blue Infrastructure

3(c) Green Infrastructure

3(d) Department of Water & Sewage

3(e) City Owned Land

To the naked eye a collection of trees adjacent to industrial sites and freeways, these forests are considered an important nature-based solution for climate change mitigation as they can help to reduce the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and contribute to efforts to combat climate change.

Municipalities can not start and maintain large infrastructural projects like these, and it should not be on the shoulders of the neighborhood to do the same either. Programs like this require city governance to train and engage community members to take pride and care to support their green spaces past their conception.

Two extremely important factors in the continued support of the city and its residents, while many new developments and projects downtown are clearly inaccessible to most due to cost and clientele, it is important that the city put as much care to the groups it continues to marginalize as it does the affluent developers that buy its land.

Unlike many plantings and landscaping projects which are seen as transient and subject to change upon land transfer, these wetlands and forests are serving integral roles in the support of neighborhood health and wellbeing and are not to be removed.

There are already many rules and regulations in effect for the creation of green/blue spaces like these, and many are for to ensure they are installed with care and consideration. This program does not advocate against them, it merely advocates for their accelerated use.

3(f) Carbon Forests 3(g) Community Based Stewardship

3(h) Equitable & Accessible 3(i) Permanent & Non-Transfer

3(j) Laws Regulations & Ordinances

3(k) Validity of Portions

Legislature is a fluid and continually changing document, and this policy acknowledges that by ensuring it will continue to function even if some portions may be deemed too “ancient” or “excessive” by future lawmakers

3(l) Achieved

In full transparency, an initiative like this never really has an end point. If there was an end goal it would be assured longevity and support of resident health through the program means, but there is no concrete way to measure that. Who knows if that day will ever come however.

This dual descriptor is the ultimate goal of all space within the city. That it not only serves its purpose for people socially, economically, and mentally but that it also ensures it will stay that way for all generation to come after.

3(n) Inclusion

Inclusion of minority-owned, women-owned, and locallyowned businesses: much like other city development initiatives, this too ensures that the ones who are invested and passionate about the areas they work are the ones volunteering to do the work, not outside speculators

Built Imaginaries Current Res-Industry Adjacency Current Flooding & Unused Space

Proposed Carbon Forest Barriers

Proposed Blue Infrastructure + Retention

POLICY #4: Alternate Block Housing Model Act Legalese

Proposed Amendment to Detroit City Zoning Code: “Block Housing Expansion Act”

Section 1: Definitions

For the purposes of this amendment, the following definitions shall apply:

“Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)” means a self-contained dwelling unit that is ancillary and subordinate to the primary dwelling unit on the same lot, and includes, but is not limited to, carriage houses, alley flats, backyard cottages, and garage apartments.

“Cooperative (Co-op) Housing” means a type of housing where multiple individuals or families share ownership or leasehold interests in a property and have the right to use and occupy a portion of the property for residential purposes.

Section 2: Minimum Lot Size Reduction

1.1 The minimum lot size requirement in the Detroit city zoning code is hereby amended from 4000 square feet to 2500 square feet for all residential zones, including R-1, R-2, R-3, and multifamily zones, in order to promote increased density and efficient land use, and to provide more flexibility in development opportunities.

Section 3: Redesignation of Vacant R-1 Zoned Group Lots

2.1 The city encourages the redesignation of vacant R-1 zoned group lots to R-2 and R-3 zoning classifications, in order to promote increased density and efficient land

use within the city. The redesignation shall be subject to applicable zoning regulations, including setbacks, height limits, and other requirements.

Section 4: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)

3.1 Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are hereby allowed in all residential zones, subject to compliance with relevant building codes and zoning regulations. ADUs shall be considered as a means to provide additional housing options, promote affordable housing, and allow for flexible use of existing residential properties.

3.2 ADUs shall meet all applicable health, safety, and building code requirements, including but not limited to requirements for egress, fire safety, and utility connections. The size, design, and location of ADUs shall be subject to applicable zoning regulations, including setbacks, height limits, and other requirements.

3.3 The city may establish additional guidelines or regulations for ADUs, including but not limited to standards for design, construction, and management, to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and promote the health, safety, and welfare of residents.

Section 5: Property Merging for Co-op Housing

4.1 Property owners in all residential zones are allowed to merge adjacent properties in order to share land and resources for cooperative (co-op) housing purposes, subject to compliance with relevant building codes and zoning regulations. Co-op housing shall be considered as a means to promote affordable housing, community engagement, and sustainable land use.

4.2 The merging of properties for co-op housing shall be subject to applicable zoning regulations, including setbacks, height limits, and other requirements. The city may establish additional guidelines or regulations for co-op housing, including but not limited to standards for management, maintenance, and resident participation, to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and promote the health, safety, and welfare of residents.

Section 6: Loosening Rules for R-2 Zoning

5.1 The rules for R-2 zoning are hereby loosened to allow for more reasonable size units to be built, subject to compliance with relevant building codes and zoning regulations. The purpose of this amendment is to promote increased housing options and density in R-2 zoned areas, while ensuring compliance with applicable regulations.

5.2 The quantity of units allowed by right in R-2 zoning is increased to promote increased density and efficient land use, subject to compliance with relevant building codes and zoning regulations. The city may establish additional guidelines or regulations for R-2 zoning, including but not limited to standards for design, construction, and management, to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and promote the health, safety, and welfare of residents.

Section 7: Reduction or Elimination of Minimum Lot Size for Multifamily

6.1 The minimum lot size requirement for multifamily zones is hereby reduced or eliminated, subject to compliance with relevant building codes and zoning regulations. This amendment is intended to promote increased density, efficient land use, and affordable housing options in multifamily areas.

6.2 The city may establish additional guidelines or regulations for multifamily development, including but not limited to standards for design, construction, and management, to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and promote the health, safety, and welfare of residents.

Section 8: Parking Requirement Reduction

7.1 The parking requirement for all residential zones is hereby reduced, subject to compliance with relevant

building codes and zoning regulations. This amendment is intended to promote more affordable housing options, encourage the use of public transportation, and reduce the impact of parking on the urban environment.

7.2 The city may establish additional guidelines or regulations for parking, including but not limited to standards for shared parking, bicycle parking, and alternative transportation options, to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and promote sustainable transportation choices.

Section 9: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Consideration

8.1 The city may consider reducing or eliminating the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement for all residential zones, subject to compliance with relevant building codes and zoning regulations. This amendment is intended to provide more flexibility in building design and promote increased density in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

8.2 The city may establish additional guidelines or regulations for FAR, including but not limited to standards for building design, setbacks, and height limits, to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and promote the health, safety, and welfare of residents.

Section 10: Severability

9.1 If any provision of this amendment or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the amendment and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect.

Section 11: Effective Date

10.1 This amendment shall take effect upon approval by the Detroit City Council and publication in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

Section 12: Conclusion

This proposed amendment to the Detroit City Zoning Code, titled the “Block Housing Expansion Act,” seeks to promote increased density, efficient land use, and affordable housing options by reducing the minimum lot size, allowing for the creation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), encouraging property merging for co-op housing, loosening rules for R-2 zoning, reducing or eliminating minimum lot size for multifamily, reducing parking requirements, and considering the elimination of FAR. It is intended to provide more flexibility in development opportunities while ensuring compliance with applicable building codes and zoning regulations, and promoting the health, safety, and welfare of residents.

[ChatGPT input: Can you please rewrite a policy that would amend the current Detroit city zoning code titled the “Block Housing Expansion Act”. It should include a number of alterations to the existing zoning code including: reducing the minimum lot size from 4000 to 2500; a section encouraging the redesignation of vacant R-1 zoned group lots to R-2 and R-3; allowing for the creation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) such as carriage houses, alley flats, backyard cottage, garage apartment; allow for the merging of properties to share land and resources and allow for multiple units on single plots to create a co-op; and loosen the rules for R2 so more reasonable size units can be built and allow a higher quantity units by right, reduce or eliminate the minimum lot size for multifamily, reduce the parking requirement and consider eliminating FAR. Make it very specific and include more legal language so it is longer and able to be submitted to Detroit city council for review.]

A self-contained living structure that is located on the same residential property as a primary dwelling. These spaces are popular in other dense urban areas like LA or Chicago, and they can gradually be used to add whole new types of living arrangements in the city beyond a single family home on one rectangular lot.

Ownership models are hard in Detroit, especially with the high cost of property tax and water. Much of the burden of these costs are mitigated by simply sharing, and by working in models of joint ownership we can also work in models of join financial responsibility between owners. This also lowers the chance of missed payments and foreclosure due to utilities.

The current promoted model of land ownership by the city is “blotting” or the purchasing and merging of vacant properties on to ones own. Much of the time the struggle to sell these lots are the high costs upkeep and tax, and if even a fraction of the lot is being used that is still one less resident without home and one less city lot

As it stands currently, around 75% of all lots within the city are zoned R-1 residential; that is one house for one family on one lot of land. That model is simply just not sustainable for a urban area as time has shown, and the less barriers entities have to building affordable and profitable middle density housing the better

One blanket policy can not cover the endless number of corner cases each with their own specificity, so like many policies this is one to be built upon moving toward the future. The highest priority should always be the health and prosperity of the residents living both on the site and surrounding areas.

4(a) ADU

4(d) Redesignation

4(b) Co-op Housing

4 (c) Minimum Lot Size

4 (e) Design Standards

Property merger has long been popular in the city with vacant lots, but good can also be done with the merging of inhabited properties. Many types of housing arrangements are not possible under current restrictions, but with the merging of property, new densities of living on smaller scales become attainable.

Loosen is obviously a very vague term to have in a legal document, but that is in part intentional. The rules and regulations that govern many of these parts of design are embedded in a number of different legal documents. By creating a blanket call to allow more variety it brings attention to the issue for those that may steward those documents

Related closely to the standards redefined above in 4(e), the changes that come to outer neighborhoods have to be gradual and intentional. Time has shown over and over building massive residential buildings in a neighborhood of small homes leads to difficult imbalance Detroit, and metro Detroit for that matter, is an area plagued by distance. As people move farther and farther apart through lowered population numbers, long commutes, and moving to the suburbs, the harder it is for people to have the necessary nets of support once found in these neighborhoods.

Much related to other policies presented in this catalog, Detroit is still a city plagued by single occupant cars and the more we can encourage residents to live in shared spaces, the more they are incentive to travel in shared ones as well.

4(f) Property Merger 4(g) Loosened

4(i) Increased Density

4(j) Standards for Parking

4(h) Ensure Compatability

4(k) FAR

The “Floor Area Ratio” is a tool often used by lawmakers to ensure that not only are there no houses that stand out for being overly large, but also there are limits to the heights one can go. While normally these are beneficial, they can form difficult barriers to many types of middle housing like row housing, joint owner co-ops, etc.

4(l) Flexibility in Development

Legislation has as much to say in what types of structures get built in a given area than any architect or developer. The current rules, regulations, and zonings promote only a few specific types of housing, and by diversifying the types of housing stocks that are even possible to be built we inject the possibility of new life and diversity to Detroit’s living situations.

Proposed Model

Built Imaginaries

Current Single House Model

Current Restrictive Zoning Requirements

Proposed Middle Housing Models

POLICY #5: Community Benefits Ordinance Revision Legalese

AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 12. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE VIII. COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF THE DETROIT CITY CODE TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS PACKAGES, ALLOCATE THOSE BENEFITS TO NEIGHBORHOODS ON THE OUTER EDGE OF THE CITY, AND REQUIRE THE REPAYMENT OF SUBSIDIES IF THE PROJECT IS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN 10 YEARS.

WHEREAS, the City of Detroit recognizes the importance of community benefits in development projects that receive public subsidies and tax abatements; and

WHEREAS, the City of Detroit seeks to establish minimum requirements for community benefits packages, as well as provisions for the use and allocation of those benefits; and

WHEREAS, the City of Detroit seeks to promote equitable development across all neighborhoods, including those on the outer edge of the city;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DETROIT:

Section 1: Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this amendment is to promote equitable and inclusive economic development in the City of Detroit, by requiring developers of certain projects to provide community benefits packages that will support the economic and social well-being of the city’s residents.

This amendment seeks to create a framework for publicprivate partnerships that will foster mutually beneficial development, provide employment opportunities, and improve the quality of life for Detroit residents, particularly those in neighborhoods that have historically been underserved by development.

This amendment applies to all development projects that receive public subsidies or tax abatements from the City of Detroit, and that exceed a certain size or cost threshold, as defined by the City. The threshold will be set at a level that balances the need to promote equitable development with the need to support economic growth and job creation in the City.

The community benefits packages required by this amendment shall be negotiated between the developer and a community benefits coalition, composed of representatives from the affected neighborhood(s) and other stakeholders. The coalition will be responsible for identifying the specific needs of the community and negotiating with the developer to ensure that the community benefits package is tailored to meet those needs.

The community benefits packages shall include, but not be limited to, provisions for local hiring and workforce development, affordable housing, small business development, and community infrastructure improvements. The community benefits package must be approved by the City Council as part of the development agreement.

This amendment is intended to be an important tool for the City in achieving its goal of promoting equitable economic development. It is intended to provide a framework for public-private partnerships that can help foster economic growth, create jobs, and improve the quality of life for Detroit residents, while also ensuring that the benefits of that growth are shared equitably across the city’s diverse communities.

Section 2: Minimum Community Benefits Requirement

Any development project that receives public subsidies or tax abatements from the City of Detroit must provide a community benefits package that is at least 25% of the total value of the subsidies and abatements received. The community benefits package must be negotiated between the developer and the impacted community, and must address the needs and priorities of that community. The community benefits package must include provisions for the creation of new jobs and/or job training programs for residents of the impacted community.

Section 3: Lowering Minimum Project Cost

The City of Detroit recognizes that small-scale development projects can also have significant impacts on the surrounding community. Therefore, the minimum project cost threshold for requiring a community benefits package shall be lowered from $3 million to $1 million.

This lower threshold will ensure that all development projects that have the potential to impact the community are subject to the community benefits requirements outlined in this amendment. Developers of projects that fall between the $1 million and $3 million threshold are encouraged to negotiate a community benefits package with the community benefits coalition, but are not required to do so.

This amendment will allow the City to ensure that all development projects, regardless of their size, serve the public interest and contribute to the City’s goal of promoting equitable economic development.

Section 4: Allocation of Community Benefits

At least half of the funds in the community benefits package must be allocated to neighborhoods on the outer edge of the city, as determined by the City of Detroit. These funds must be used for community development

projects, such as affordable housing, public infrastructure improvements, or job training programs. The remaining funds may be used at the discretion of the developer, in consultation with the impacted community, to address other community needs and priorities.

Section 5. Performance Requirement

The initial developer must complete the community projects outlined in the community benefits package within 10 years of the approval of the development project. If the community projects are not completed within this timeframe, the developer must pay back the value of the initial subsidies and abatements received from the City of Detroit, plus interest at the rate of 1.5% per month until repayment is made.

Section 6: Enforcement

The City of Detroit may take appropriate legal action to enforce the provisions of this ordinance, including but not limited to revoking public subsidies and tax abatements, imposing fines or penalties, or seeking injunctive relief. The City of Detroit may also require the posting of a bond or other financial security to ensure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance.

Section 7: Reporting Requirement

The City of Detroit shall require the initial developer to provide an annual report on the progress and outcomes of the community benefits package, including the number of new jobs created and/or job training programs established, and the impact of community development projects on the impacted community. The report shall be made publicly available on the City of Detroit’s website.

Section 8: Technical Amendments

The City of Detroit may make technical amendments to this ordinance as necessary to ensure compliance with state and federal laws and regulations.

Section 9: Conclusions

The City of Detroit hereby adopts this amendment to promote equitable and community-oriented development across all neighborhoods of the city. By establishing minimum requirements for community benefits packages and ensuring the allocation of those benefits to neighborhoods on the outer edge of the city, this amendment seeks to build stronger and more vibrant communities throughout Detroit. It is the City’s hope that this amendment will contribute to a more sustainable and equitable future for all residents of Detroit, and serve as a model for other cities seeking to promote equitable development practices.

5(n)

[ChatGPT Input: Can you please rewrite an amendment to the Detroit city Ordinance to make community benefits packages required minimums be at least 25% of the public subsidies and tax abatements given to the proposed project. It should also include a clause where half of the money from the community benefits package be used on neighborhoods on the outer edge of the city, and if the proposed community projects are not completed within 10 years the initial development must pay back the initial subsidies to the city. Make it very specific and include more legal language so it is longer and able to be submitted to Detroit city council for review]

Unlike many of the other legislations seen in this catalog, this one attaches and modifies an existing and recently instituted Detroit legislation. There were very close margins on what kind of community benefits policy would be written into city code, and this amendment looks to be the middle ground addition to the two.

A new term taken like a wave across many of the new initiatives looking to support Detroit’s economic growth. It is not enough to invite outside businesses to build and practice within the city, and it is imperative that economic benefits of these new developments are helping the city’s most marginalized as much if not more than the corporations themselves

A set of negotiated agreements between developers and local communities or stakeholders, often as part of a larger development or construction project. These are the most tangible and realistic way to ensure that new obstructive constructions serve the city in real ways beyond the generation of revenue

As it stands, while multiple multi-million/billionaires have poured financial support into the city, it has only been to the few square miles of the downtown area. Imagery of “Detroit’s comeback” has been delegated to new overexpensive shops, sports arenas, and business towers, but little of that same care has gone to neighborhoods still struggling

Residents being affected by these new oversized developments should be the ones making the decision on what kind of help they receive. Planting two-hundred trees does little to help continued systematically enforced economic challenges and lack of public resources.

5(a) Detroit City Code

5(d) Underserved

5(b) Inclusive Economic Development

5 (c) Community Benefits Package

5 (e) Community Benefits Coalition

While many a publication will label Detroiters as helpless and in need of saving, they are more resilient and hardworking than much of the rest of the country. These types of partnerships can foster job creation and fulfillment as well as other mutual support systems for the city.

Public subsidies and Tax abatements: for the last several large construction projects to grace the city (like sports arenas and mixed use high rises) the city has agreed to tens of millions of dollars in support for the projects, while in return the corporations have promised a few measly million in return to the areas they displace.

5(h)

Detroit is a sprawling city, so you are not often going to find extremely large building projects. By lowering the minimum project cost we can ensure that developers cannot get around giving back to the area by breaking intentions into several smaller projects that still add up.

Even though the state/country is a representative democracy, sometimes the wills and wants of the people do not line up with that of their duly elected officials. The interests, wants, and will of the citizens are found all over the city, and are often actionable if anyone would listen

A process of seeking input, feedback, or advice from individuals who may be affected by the decision, policy, or project. It involves actively engaging residents in a meaningful and inclusive manner to gather their perspectives, opinions, and expertise before making a decision or taking action.

5(f) Public Private Partnership

5(g) Subsidies and Abatements

5(i) Public Interest

5(j) Consultation

Minimum Project Cost

5(k) Timeframe

As it stands, the issues that Detroit government has been having with recent developments are not the agreement to have community benefits within their project, but rather the lack of interest in actually fulfilling those promises. By putting a hard deadline on this, it ensures that the investments the city makes are solid if not returnable

5(l) Appropriate Legal Action

These changes and challenges proposed here to developers should not be empty promises. The city cannot afford to reduce its stores or incomes if there is no return on investment.

5(m) Impact

It is one thing to say that these changes will have a positive impact on communities, it is another to see it happen. Even over long periods of development, success and sustainability of efforts should be monitored and disseminated.

5(n) Model

Detroit was once the model for many things in the country: a thriving industry, a sustainable middle class, and a diverse population. Many of these labels have fallen away with the progression of time, but it is time to put Detroit back on the map of future and civilian oriented development.

Proposed Model

POLICY #5

Built Imaginaries

Existing Large Constructions

Adjacent Vacancy & Resource Depletion

Proposed Use of Community Benefits Package

POLICY #6: Law Enforcement Restructuring + Reconstruction Program

Legalese

Introduction:

The Law Enforcement Restructuring and Reconstruction Program will restructure the budget allotment for Detroit City Police Department and shift funds from cost-draining programs to essential projects like dispatch hiring/ training and social service responders. The policy will also reorganize and expand select police stations to double as community centers where residents can access essential services, learn about legal rights, and file taxes. This policy will ensure that Detroit residents have access to vital social services, increase transparency and trust between the police and the community, and promote public safety.

Section 1: Definitions

1. “City” means the City of Detroit.

2. “Program” means the Law Enforcement Restructuring and Reconstruction Program.

3. “Department” means the Detroit Police Department.

4. “SWAT” means the Special Weapons and Tactics unit of the Detroit Police Department.

5. “Dispatch” means the 911 Emergency Call Center of the Detroit Police Department.

6. “Social Services Responders” means a team of trained professionals who respond to non-violent emergency situations where social services are needed, including mental health professionals, substance abuse counselors, and social workers.

Section 2 : Community Policing and Social Services

The Law Enforcement Restructuring and Reconstruction Program aims to prioritize community policing and social services to enhance public safety and strengthen the

bond between law enforcement and the community. To achieve this, the policy will allocate funds to establish a new department under the Detroit Police Department (DPD) called the Community Policing and Social Services Unit (CPSSU). The CPSSU will be responsible for developing and implementing community-oriented policing and problem-solving strategies, working in collaboration with social services agencies to provide residents with access to mental health services, housing assistance, and other essential resources.

Section 3: Budget Restructuring

The current budget allocation for the DPD includes several programs that have been deemed non-essential, such as Project Greenlight, advanced tracking technology, defunct taskforces, and other military-style equipment and tactics. The Law Enforcement Restructuring and Reconstruction Program will restructure the budget allocation to ensure that resources are prioritized to meet the community’s needs. The program will:

1. Reduce funding for non-essential programs and redirect these resources to essential projects such as dispatch hiring and training, community policing, and social services responders.

2. Increase funding for training programs that focus on community-oriented policing, de-escalation techniques, and implicit bias training.

3. Provide funding for the establishment of new community police stations that double as community centers. These centers will provide residents with access to essential services such as tax filing assistance, legal aid, and social services support.

Section 4: Community Centers

Select police stations in Detroit will be reorganized and expanded to double as community centers. The community centers will provide residents with access to essential services, including legal assistance, tax filing assistance, and information about government assistance programs. The centers will also provide a safe space for community events and gatherings.

Each center will have a police precinct, social services office, and legal aid clinic. The police precinct will be staffed with officers, who will handle routine police work as well as serve as community liaisons. The social services office will provide a range of services such as food assistance programs, housing assistance, and job training programs. The legal aid clinic will offer residents access to legal advice and representation.

Additionally, the centers will have a large community room for public meetings and events, classrooms for workshops and training, and computer labs for tax filing and assistance program applications. The centers will also have outdoor spaces such as playgrounds and community gardens.

Section 5: Implementation

The implementation of this policy will involve the following steps:

1. Identification of appropriate police stations for reorganization and expansion based on community needs and accessibility.

2. Development of a comprehensive plan for the design and construction of the mixed-use justice centers.

3. Staffing of the centers with appropriately trained personnel, including police officers, social workers, legal aid lawyers, and community educators.

4. Public outreach and education campaigns to raise awareness and encourage community participation.

5. Ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of the centers in meeting community needs and improving community relations with law enforcement.

Section 6: Funding for Community Centers

Funding for the reorganization and expansion of police stations into community centers shall be provided from the budget restructuring in Section 3. The Detroit City Council shall allocate sufficient funds for the construction, renovation, and operation of the community centers.

Section 7: Recruitment and Training

The Law Enforcement Restructuring and Reconstruction Program will prioritize recruitment and training to ensure that the DPD is staffed by dispatchers who are committed to community-oriented policing and problem-solving. The program will establish new recruitment and training initiatives that prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion. The DPD will also provide ongoing training opportunities for dispatchers to ensure that they have the skills and knowledge needed to effectively serve the community.

Section 8: Implementation and Accountability

The Law Enforcement Restructuring and Reconstruction Program will be implemented by the DPD in collaboration with community organizations and leaders. The policy will establish a Community Oversight Board, comprised of community leaders, law enforcement officials, and city officials to oversee the implementation and progress of the policy. The board will be responsible for monitoring the budget allocation, evaluating the effectiveness of the CPSSU and community policing initiatives, and making recommendations for improvements

The Detroit Police Department shall also participate in the Collaborative Reform Initiative, a program developed by the U.S. Department of Justice to improve policecommunity relations and address issues of trust and legitimacy. The program shall involve an assessment of the department’s policies and practices, as well as training and technical assistance on community policing, data collection, and analysis.

Section 9: Severability

If any provision of this policy is found to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of law, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of this policy. In such cases, the parties shall make good faith efforts to replace the invalid or unenforceable provision with a valid and enforceable provision that achieves the intended purpose of the original provision.

Section 9: Effective Date

This policy shall become effective immediately upon approval by the Detroit City Council.

Conclusion:

In summary, the Law Enforcement Restructuring and Reconstruction Program aims to prioritize community policing and social services to enhance public safety and strengthen the bond between law enforcement and the community. The program will restructure the budget allocation to ensure that resources are allocated to meet the community’s needs, increase funding for training programs, and provide funding for the establishment of new community police stations that double as community centers. The policy will be implemented and monitored by the DPD in collaboration with community organizations and leaders, with oversight from a Community Oversight Board to ensure accountability and progress.

[Chat GPT input: Please write a governmental policy or bill for the city of Detroit titled the “Law Enforcement Restructuring and Reconstruction Program.” It would restructure the budget allotment for Detroit city police and move funds from cost draining programs (project greenlight, advanced tracking technology, SWAT, etc) and move them into essential projects like dispatch hiring/ training and social services responders. It would also move funds to reorganize and expand select police station to double as community centers where residents can go and learn how to file taxes, sign up for assistance programs, and learn about legal rights without having to travel to city hall.

Redefinition

In cities so spread out like Detroit, the issue is not necessarily lack of resources but rather a lack of easy access. Services like legal counseling, tax assistance programs, and physiological services are not normally open to all without extensive wait-lists, draining costs, or the need to travel considerable distance

The use of program rather than “bill” or “initiative” indicates not only a continually supported effort, but one that maintains considerable oversight from the city and from residents themselves. A collective effort to continually improve relations and mediate justified feelings of oppression.

“Detroit Police Department”, referring not only to the on the ground police officers, but also higher command, dispatchers, and clerks. Change has to happen at all levels, and many of the challenges identified here involve collaboration and training for all involved.

A new form of first response being tested in other municipalities where specially trained social service experts and agents are sent to incidents instead of police. There was a time when officers transported critical medical emergencies to hospitals, and everyone thought the ambulance was a crazy idea. Times change

“Community Policing and Social Services Unit”. By creating a unit under but separate from DPD this new service will share the same essential resources and informations while being able to take critical burden off of law enforcement into better hands.

6(a) Vital Social Service

6(d) Social Service

Responders

6(b) Program

6 (c) DPD

6 (e) CPSSU

The needs of the community are not determined by the individual or by an oversight body, but rather are a collaboration of all members within a body of shared experience. The need for safety, information, peace of mind, and the space to improve ones own condition are c chief among them

By turning the police precinct into a space of collaboration and community well being, long standing barriers of distance begin to break down. Through the use of the “community Center” neighbors have the opportunity to communicate and share resources both physical and mental.

In providing legal and social resources within one space that is also shared buy the law-keeping forces, individuals can better learn about their rights as the individual within the collective and how to better reclaim the space as their own.

With the ever increasing distance between the individual and the community, the ever growing need for new infrastructures that foster social bonds grows. By creating a neutral space for events and collectives, people can build networks of belonging and support.

This program is idealized not as a single act to be completed and moved on from. Effectiveness and oversight from the groups affected by these changes is integral to the success of these changes

6(f) Community Needs 6(g) Community Centers

6(i) Community Room

6(j) Ongoing Evaluation

6(h) SS Office Legal Aid Clinic

Funds are always a question when these types of initiatives are started. This is where the reexamination of the DPD as a whole regarding both fiscality and effectiveness. Turning ancient initiatives that oppress like ticket quotas and the greenlight program into ones that can build bonds between the community.

This is not a unique nor independent program, and from the highest level of government/policing these changes are being recommended. The importance here is the how integral data and overwatch is within not just enforcing the law but understanding if the law is actually working as intended.

This type of clause insures that as times move on and context evolves that this program will as well. As components are completed they are not ticked off a list, but rather they are rewritten to continue to iterate and improve

This collaborative process involves building relationships, sharing resources and expertise, and developing strategies that are based on a shared understanding of the needs and priorities of the community. The aim of community organization collaboration is to promote inclusive, equitable, and sustainable development.

Ontologies of Entities

Traditional Model

Proposed Model

Built Imaginaries

Existing Police Precinct

Unused Space + Resources

Proposed Creation of Community Resource Spaces

Engagement with Community and Residents

POLICY #7: Detroit Urban Farming Fulfillment +Ownership Program

Legalese

Section 1: Purpose and Intent

The purpose of this ordinance is to establish the Detroit Urban Farming Fulfillment Program to promote urban farming and community development in the City of Detroit. This ordinance aims to support and encourage the establishment of community gardens, urban farms, and food development projects on city-owned vacant land, with the intention of revitalizing neighborhoods, promoting local agriculture, and improving access to healthy food options.

Section 2: Definitions

1. “City” means the City of Detroit.

2. “Urban Farm” means a piece of land used for growing crops and raising livestock in an urban area.

3. “Community Garden” means a piece of land where people can come together to grow and cultivate plants, vegetables, fruits, and herbs.

4. “Food Development Project” means any project related to food production, processing, distribution, and marketing.

5. “Lessee” means any individual, group, or organization that has been granted a lease on cityowned land for urban farming or food development.

6. “Community” means the residents and stakeholders of the neighborhood where the land is located.

7. “Water Cost Subsidies” means financial assistance provided by the City to the lessee to support the farming site during the first five years of the lease.

Section 3: Urban Farming Fulfillment Program

1. The City of Detroit shall establish the Detroit Urban Farming Fulfillment Program to lease city-owned vacant land to community groups, organizations, or individuals for the purpose of establishing community gardens, urban farms, and food development projects.

2. The lease shall be for a period of five years, with an option to renew for another five-year period, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the lease agreement.

3. The lease shall be granted on the condition that the lessee uses the land for urban farming or food development activities and adheres to all applicable laws and regulations related to agriculture, food safety, and environmental protection.

4. The lessee shall be responsible for maintaining the land, including soil preparation, planting, weeding, watering, and harvesting of crops.

5. The lessee shall not sell, transfer, or assign the lease or any interest therein without the prior written consent of the City.

6. The lessee shall be entitled to receive water cost subsidies to support the farming site during the first five years of the lease. The amount of the water cost subsidies shall be determined by the City, subject to available funds.

7. The lessee shall submit an annual report to the City detailing the progress of the urban farming or food development activities, the impact on the community, and the use of water cost subsidies.

8. The City shall provide technical assistance and support to the lessee in the form of training, workshops, and access to resources to facilitate the success of the urban farming or food development activities.

Section 4: Transfer of Ownership

1. If the lessee has fulfilled all the conditions of the lease, including maintaining the land, producing crops, and contributing to the community, the City shall transfer the ownership of the land to the lessee upon the expiration of the lease.

2. The transfer of ownership shall be subject to the approval of the community in which the land is located. The lessee shall submit a petition to the City signed by a majority of the members of the community in support of the transfer of ownership.

3. If the community approves the transfer of ownership, the land shall be collectively owned by the members of the community, and it cannot be transferred or sold without the unanimous consent of all members. The lessee shall sign a community agreement that outlines the terms and conditions of the transfer of ownership, including any restrictions or conditions related to the use and maintenance of the land.

4. If the lessee fails to fulfill any of the conditions of the lease, including maintaining the land, producing crops, or contributing to the community, the City shall have the right to terminate the lease and take possession of the land.

Section 5: Water Cost Subsidies

1. In order to support the development and maintenance of urban farms and community gardens under this program, the City of Detroit will provide water cost subsidies to lessees for a period of five years from the date of lease commencement.

2. The amount of the water cost subsidy shall be determined by the City and shall be based on the size of the farm or garden and the amount of water required for irrigation. The City shall establish a formula for calculating the water cost subsidy that takes into account the size of the farm or garden, the average cost of water usage, and any other relevant factors.

3. The water cost subsidy shall be provided to lessees on a quarterly basis, and the lessee shall be required to provide documentation of water usage and expenses. The lessee must also provide a report detailing how the water subsidy was used to improve the farming operation and how it has impacted the community.

4. The City may terminate the water cost subsidy if the lessee fails to comply with the conditions of the lease, including maintaining the land or producing crops. If the lessee is found to have misused the subsidy or failed to provide documentation or reports as required, the City may demand that the lessee repay the subsidy and may terminate the lease.

5. The City may review and adjust the water cost subsidy annually based on changes in water rates, farm or garden size, and other relevant factors.

6. The water cost subsidy shall be funded by the City of Detroit’s general fund or other available sources of revenue. The City may also seek grants or other funding opportunities to support this program.

7. The City shall prioritize water cost subsidies for lessees who are low-income individuals or organizations serving low-income communities.

8. The City shall provide education and outreach to lessees on water conservation practices and sustainable farming techniques to help minimize water usage and reduce the cost of water.

9. The City shall provide technical assistance to lessees on irrigation system design, installation, and maintenance to help ensure efficient use of water and reduce water waste.

Section 6: Severability

If any provision of this ordinance is declared invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 7: Effective Date

This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the City Council.

Section 8: Repeal of Inconsistent Ordinances

All ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.

Conclusion

The Detroit Urban Farming Fulfillment Program is a bold initiative to promote urban farming and community development in the City of Detroit. By leasing city-owned vacant land to community groups, organizations, and individuals for the purpose of establishing community gardens, urban farms, and food development projects, this ordinance will help revitalize neighborhoods, promote local agriculture, and improve access to healthy food options. With water cost subsidies, technical assistance, and support from the City, lessees will have the resources and guidance they need to succeed. And with the possibility of collective ownership of the land after the lease period, community members will have a stake in the success of the urban farming and food development activities. This ordinance represents a win-win situation for the City of Detroit and its residents, and I urge the City Council to adopt it.

[ChatGPT input: Propose a governmental bill or ordinance for the city of Detroit titled the “Detroit Urban Farming Fulfillment Program.” I would propose a new model of land ownership that would allow for a community to lease a piece of currently city owned property with joint ownership on the condition of it being used for urban farming and food development. If after a period of 5 years the site has been proven fruitful, enriching, and engaging to the neighborhood the full ownership of the lot will transfer to the collective ownership of the area where it cannot be transferred unless all members agree to sell the lot. Also, it should include a section on water cost subsidies to support the farming site during the first five year period.”]

Redefinition

7(a)

Projects

Detroit as a city has one of the most considerable food access deficits in the US. While many programs have been pitched to build more chains of capitalistic grocers, others have begun to reintroduce the poulace to the fiscal and health benefits of reintegrating with the land

The word urban farm has been thrown around very loosely in the last decade. While factors like scale produce have varied, the important term here is the “urban”. Farms within the built environment are not the product of the individual but rather a shared resource maintained and owned through the collective.

Land has continued to prove itself an integral gear within the capitalistic machine that tills wealth from the land. By spreading the ownership among the neighborhood and preventing the sale to predatory entities this ensures that the first priority will be support not commerce.

Communities are forged through adjacency, hardship, celebration, and social bonds. They are not limited by the imaginary lines drawn by census tracks or limited by geography. Community is how you chose to engage with the collective

There is a vicious cycle present within our system where a community led program will grow in strength to the point of attracting speculators and “investor.” This type of clause ensures that while those not within the community can support, they cannot break apart or take ownership of the initiative

Food Development

7(b) “Urban Farm”

7(c) “Leasse”

7(d) Community

4(e) Prohibit Sales

There are precedents in this country and many others where the more one works the land and puts their own soul into its maintenance, the more they own it. Land is not a commodity, but a considerable portion is within the control of the city

The needs of the community are not determined by the individual or by an oversight body, but rather are a collaboration of all members within a body of shared experience. The need for safety, information, peace of mind, and the space to improve ones own condition are chief among them

Models of individual ownership of resources like land and the idea of property lead to the self fulfilling prophecy of self situational improvement. For resources like this that is shared collectively and worked collectively, it only makes sense to build new models to be owned collectively

Water cost and water quality in Detroit has long been a hot button issue. The city has been known to foreclose on homes for as little as $2k in water debt. With water being integral to the irrigation process and the extractive cost of water for the city, it only makes sense for the city to pitch in where it has the most control.

Detroit like many a municipality has a general fun of tax dollars and donations. While lately much of this has been divided into maintaining the status quo within much of the city, a considerable amount of it has been given either through tax breaks or other means to downtown developments. It is time this shifts to the residents.

7(f) Transfer of Ownership

7(g) Approval of Community

7(h) Collective Ownership

7(i) Water Cost Subsidy

7(j) Detroit’s General Fund

Urban farming is not the same as gardening and requires a considerable amount of knowledge. If the city wants to promote self sufficiency, water management, and community led initiatives, it needs to provide support in both the fiscal and informational

A small section ensuring that in the case of conflict with other existing resolutions or future proposed millages that is initiative cannot be undone with a single stroke or pushed to the back of the line in budgeting

Much of the land that the city “owned” is not done so rightfully. These lands were once homes and still retain those memories and community sense. Forced fiscal hardship and the creation of policies that make foreclosure profitable for others is not a model of sucess

Communities gain access to necessary food sources and incomes generation, the city in turn turns over a number of “vacant” properties that they have tried so hard to get off their hands. People will not buy cheep land if they do not have any incentive or support to develop them

POLICY #3

Built Imaginaries

Existing Vacant Lot

Blotted Lots Used for Storage & Parking

Proposed Community Urban Farm

POLICY #8: Predatory Land Aggregation Abatement Act Legalese

Section 1: Purpose

The purpose of this bill is to revitalize vacant land and buildings in Detroit’s employment districts in a way that creates new job opportunities for residents of the city and strengthens the local economy. It is the intention of this bill to ensure that foreclosure and vacancy is not a profitable endeavor in the city of Detroit and that job creation efforts are focused on supporting existing residents rather than outside multinational corporations.

Detroit has experienced significant economic challenges in recent years, including widespread foreclosure, vacancy, and unemployment. The city has struggled to attract and retain businesses and residents, leading to a decline in economic opportunities and quality of life for many Detroit residents. The purpose of this bill is to reverse these trends and create a more prosperous future for all Detroit residents.

The City of Detroit recognizes that revitalizing vacant land and buildings in employment districts is a critical component of any effort to promote economic growth and job creation. By encouraging the development of new businesses and industries, the city can create new job opportunities and generate new revenue streams that can support the local economy.

However, the city also recognizes that job creation efforts must be focused on supporting existing residents rather than outside multinational corporations. This bill is designed to ensure that job creation efforts are targeted towards creating opportunities for Detroit residents and strengthening the local economy, rather than providing financial incentives for large corporations to relocate to the city.

Section 2: Prohibitions

No public land or building shall be sold or leased for any use that does not clearly further job creation or strengthen the vitality of employment districts. This provision is critical to ensure that public resources are used to promote economic growth and not for private gain.

Section 3: Base Cost Increase

The city shall increase the base cost of holding vacant land for-profit speculation by 50% of the current market value. This provision is designed to discourage speculative behavior by for-profit developers and to incentivize them to develop their properties for job-creating uses. By increasing the cost of holding vacant land for speculative purposes, the city can encourage developers to put their properties to productive use, which will ultimately benefit the city and its residents.

Section 4: Program for Underutilized Buildings

The city shall create a program to foster greater utilization of underutilized buildings already owned by developers. This program shall offer incentives to developers who renovate or repurpose underutilized buildings for jobcreating uses. The program shall also provide technical assistance and financial support to help developers navigate the complex regulatory environment and access funding sources for their projects. By supporting the renovation and repurposing of underutilized buildings, the city can create jobs, increase the vitality of employment districts, and reduce blight in the city.

Section 5: Maintenance Requirements

All privately-owned vacant land shall be subject to clear maintenance requirements. The owner of vacant land shall be required to maintain the property in a clean and safe condition, free from debris, weeds, and other hazards. Failure to comply with these maintenance requirements shall result in the imposition of fees and penalties. This provision is designed to ensure that privately-owned vacant land is not a blight on the city and

that it is maintained in a way that is safe and aesthetically pleasing.

Section 6: Enforcement

The city shall aggressively enforce fee payment and maintenance requirements for privately owned vacant land. Failure to pay fees or comply with maintenance requirements shall result in fines, penalties, and possible legal action. This provision is critical to ensure that property owners comply with the requirements of this bill and that they are held accountable for the maintenance of their properties.

Section 7: Definitions

For the purposes of this bill, the following definitions shall apply:

1. “Employment District” means any area of the city of Detroit that is zoned for industrial or commercial use, as designated by the City of Detroit’s Planning and Development Department.

2. “Vacant Land” means any parcel of land within the City of Detroit that is not currently occupied by a structure or that is otherwise considered vacant or abandoned, as determined by the City of Detroit’s Building Safety and Engineering Department.

3. “Vacant Building” means any structure within the City of Detroit that has been unoccupied for a period of six months or longer, or that is otherwise considered vacant or abandoned, as determined by the City of Detroit’s Building Safety and Engineering Department.

4. “Foreclosure” means the legal process by which a lender takes possession of a property from a borrower who has defaulted on their mortgage or other loan.

5. “Multinational Corporation” means any corporation that operates in multiple countries and has global reach and influence.

6. “Detroit Resident” means any individual who resides within the City of Detroit, as determined by the City of Detroit’s Department of Neighborhoods.

7. “Job Creation” means the act of creating new job opportunities within the City of Detroit, either through the establishment of new businesses or the expansion of existing businesses, in order to stimulate economic growth and improve the quality of life for Detroit residents.

8. “For-profit Speculation” means the act of holding vacant land for the purpose of selling it at a higher price in the future, without any intention of developing or utilizing the land in the meantime.

Section 8: Effective Date

This bill shall become effective immediately upon its passage by the Detroit City Council and approval by the Mayor of Detroit.

Section 9: Sunset Provision

This bill shall be in effect for a period of ten years, after which it shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Detroit City Council to determine its effectiveness and whether it should be extended, modified, or allowed to expire. This provision is designed to ensure that the bill is regularly reviewed and evaluated to ensure that it is achieving its intended purpose and that it remains relevant and effective over time.

Section 10: Funding

The City of Detroit shall allocate sufficient funding to support the implementation and enforcement of this bill. Funding shall be used to support the creation and administration of programs to promote the redevelopment of vacant land and buildings, the enforcement of maintenance requirements for privately owned vacant land, and the collection of fees and penalties for noncompliance.

Section 11: Reporting Requirements

The City of Detroit shall provide regular reports to the Detroit City Council on the implementation and effectiveness of this bill. Reports shall include information on the number and types of properties redeveloped, the

number of jobs created, the amount of fees and penalties collected, and any other relevant information. These reports shall be made available to the public and shall be used to inform future decisions on the implementation and modification of this bill.

Section 12: Severability

If any provision of this bill or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the bill or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. This provision is designed to ensure that the bill can be implemented in a way that is consistent with applicable law and that any potential legal challenges to the bill do not undermine its overall purpose.

Section 13: Conclusion

This bill aims to promote economic growth in Detroit by revitalizing vacant land and buildings in employment districts. By prohibiting the sale or lease of public land or buildings for non-job creating uses, increasing the cost of holding vacant land for-profit speculation, creating a program for the renovation and repurposing of underutilized buildings, and imposing clear maintenance requirements and enforcement mechanisms for privatelyowned vacant land, the city can create a more vibrant and prosperous future for all Detroit residents.

[ChatGPT input: Propose a new bill for Detroit city government that would revitalize vacant land and buildings in employment districts for economic growth. The fundamental principle is that no public land should be sold except for uses that clearly further creating jobs, or strengthening the vitality of the employment district. There should also be action embedded within to increase the base cost of holding vacant land for for-profit speculation of large developers, and it should create a program to foster greater utilization of underutilized buildings already owned by aforementioned developers. The bill should also impose clear maintenance requirements for privately owned vacant land, and aggressively enforce both fee payment and maintenance requirements. Make it very specific and include more legal language so it is longer and able to be submitted to Detroit city council for review]

Redefinition

Commonly referred to as the process of renewing, developing, and restoring the economic, social, and physical well-being of the city. What this means to a resident may differ from that of a lawmaker or a community group. The ultimate goal is not to see Detroit “rebuilt” but to reestablish it in an ultimate state that never existed before

As it stands, foreclosure is a profitable endeavor for developers and the city. Not only does this alienate the current residents and make them feel antagonized, it also leads to the issues the city continues to try and “fix”. The future that legislature should be working for should be the same prosperous one that the residents imagine

Despite the fact that the population of Detroit proper has fallen steadily over the last few decades, the population of the metro area has stayed stagnant. People are not leaving the city, they are being forced out of city limits. Policy should support those that are fighting to stay not just those that wish to move in

Community groups like Detroit Future City and Detroit city planners themselves have identified areas of the city that will be integral for job growth within the near future. The goal should be to make these areas accessible to all and not just predicated to new stakeholders from outside

Buying, holding, and selling of real estate with the primary goal of making a profit. It typically involves purchasing lots at a lower price with the expectation of selling them at a higher price in the future, after the revitalization of the area by city or neighborhood initiatives, in order to generate a financial gain.

8(a) Revitalize

8(b) Prosperous Future

8(c) Existing Residents

8(d) Employment Districts

8(e) For Profit Speculation

Even though the state/country is a representative democracy, sometimes the wills and wants of the people do not line up with that of their duly elected officials. The interests, wants, and will of the citizens are found all over the city, and are often actionable if anyone would listen City officials and utility companies have a tendency to foreclose on the smallest charge in Detroit. At the same time, after they are vacated or bulldozed the rubble and greenery is left to decay. The requirement presented here ensures that both the speculative owners AND the city have to maintain the vacancy they manufacture

A slap on the hand does nothing, especially in the grand scheme of business. Fees are just gateways for the affluent to get there way, and the only way to combat it is to be diligent with legal action against those that are creating “blight” within the city. Foreclosure typically occurs when a borrower fails to make mortgage payments for an extended period of time, usually several months or more, and the lender has exhausted other options for resolving the delinquency. In Detroit this tends to be much more expedited with as little as $2k behind as grounds for foreclosure, and usually with little notice from the lender

A company normally working across several countries or districts with little or no connection to the are and the people they are acting upon. This word is also used as a place holder for large corporations operating in the US and across multiple states, especially in the fields of real-estate

8(k) Ten year Period

8(l) Creation of Programs

Legislation should move and evolve with time to afford more opportunity and benefit for its constituents. This ten year timer gives a set period of action trying to fight back against current predatory policies, after which its effectiveness will be reexamined and necessary changes made Creation and administration of programs: While often these stipulations are geared towards the creation of initiatives that specifically work towards the bill’s aims, it should also be noted that several community groups are already working on the same areas and should be brought into the fold.

8(m) Regular reports

Accountability is an important aspect of legislature, not only that the elected officials have the residents issues at heart, but that the policies they approve are working as intented. Public reports like these keep everyone up to date and honest.

8(n) Economic Growth

By economic growth we do not mean the growth of the city budget or the gross income of the business within the city, but rather the individual economic growth of individuals to allow them to live sustainable and prosperous lives while living within Detroit.

Built Imaginaries

Existing Vacant Lot Owned by Speculator

Lack of Upkeep and Dumping by Owner

POLICY #9: Area Median Income Recalculation and Redistribution Act

Legalese

Introduction:

This policy proposal aims to recalculate the Area Median Income (AMI) for the City of Detroit based on the data and metrics of residents of the City of Detroit itself, rather than using the HUD Detroit-Dearborn-Livonia metropolitan area. The objective of this proposal is to make affordable housing affordable to the vast majority of residents in Detroit city proper. This policy proposal will outline the steps required to recalculate the AMI for the City of Detroit and will provide a clear justification for this change.

Section 1: Definitions

1. Area Median Income (AMI): The median household income for a specific geographic area, typically defined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

2. Detroit-Dearborn-Livonia metropolitan area: A geographic area that includes the City of Detroit and surrounding suburbs, as defined by the US Census Bureau.

3. Low-Income Household: A household whose income is less than 80% of the AMI for their area.

4. Affordable Housing: Housing that is affordable to low-income households, typically defined as housing that costs no more than 30% of a household’s income.

5. Weighted Average Method: A statistical method that calculates a weighted average by taking into account the number of observations at each level.

Section 2: Recalculation of AMI for the City of Detroit

1. Calculation of AMI: The AMI will be recalculated for the City of Detroit based on the data and metrics of residents of the City of Detroit itself, rather than using the HUD Detroit-Dearborn-Livonia metropolitan area.

2. Data Collection: The City of Detroit shall collect data on the income of households within the City of Detroit to calculate the new AMI. The data will be collected from sources such as the US Census Bureau, the Detroit Housing Commission, the Detroit Department of Housing and Revitalization, and other relevant sources.

3. .Calculation Method: The City of Detroit shall use a weighted average method to calculate the new AMI. The weighted average method will take into account the number of households at each income level to calculate the new AMI. This will ensure that the new AMI reflects the income distribution of the City of Detroit.

4. .Timeline for Recalculation: The City of Detroit shall recalculate the AMI every five years using the data and metrics of residents of the City of Detroit itself. The first recalculation shall be completed within one year of the passing of this policy.

5. The proposed policy will utilize a weighted average method to calculate the new AMI for the City of Detroit. The weighted average method takes into account the number of observations at each income level, which provides a more accurate reflection of the income distribution within the city. The new AMI will be calculated based on the weighted average of the median income of households within the city.

Section 2: Justification for Recalculation of AMI

1. Need for Affordable Housing: The City of Detroit has a significant need for affordable housing, as a large percentage of residents are low-income or live in poverty. Recalculating the AMI will ensure that affordable housing is accessible to the vast majority of residents in Detroit city proper.

2. Discrepancy in AMI: The current AMI for the DetroitDearborn-Livonia metropolitan area is significantly higher than the median income of households within the City of Detroit itself. This discrepancy results in many low-income households being unable to afford housing in the city, as they do not qualify for affordable housing programs.

3. .City-Specific Factors: The City of Detroit faces unique economic and demographic factors that are not reflected in the current AMI calculation. Recalculating the AMI for the City of Detroit using data and metrics specific to the city will ensure that affordable housing programs are tailored to the needs of the city.

4. The proposed policy is necessary to address the affordable housing crisis in the City of Detroit. The current AMI calculation used by HUD does not accurately reflect the unique circumstances of the city, which has led to a discrepancy between the current AMI and the median income of households within the city. Recalculating the AMI based on cityspecific data and metrics will ensure that affordable housing programs are tailored to the needs of the city and accessible to low-income households. The proposed policy will also help to address issues of gentrification and displacement, which are becoming increasingly common in Detroit.

Section 3: Implementation

1. .Implementation Responsibility: The responsibility for implementing this policy shall fall under the Detroit Department of Housing and Revitalization.

2. .Public Notice: The City of Detroit shall provide public notice of the new AMI calculation method and the implementation timeline. The notice shall be provided through channels such as the City of Detroit website, social media, and local newspapers.

3. Revisions: This policy may be revised by the Detroit City Council at any time.

4. The proposed policy will be implemented by the City of Detroit and relevant government agencies. The policy will be publicly announced and implemented

within six months of its approval by the Detroit City Council. The policy will be reviewed and updated every five years to ensure that the AMI remains reflective of the unique circumstances of the City of Detroit.

Section 4: Data Collection

The proposed policy will require the collection of data from a variety of sources, including the US Census Bureau, the Detroit Housing Commission, and other relevant government agencies. This data will be used to calculate the median income of households within the City of Detroit and determine the appropriate AMI for the city. The data collection process will be overseen by a committee consisting of representatives from the City of Detroit, housing advocacy groups, and relevant government agencies. The committee will be responsible for ensuring that the data collected is accurate and reflective of the unique circumstances of the City of Detroit.

Conclusion:

This policy proposal aims to recalculate the Area Median Income (AMI) for the City of Detroit based on the data and metrics of residents of the City of Detroit itself, rather than using the HUD Detroit-Dearborn-Livonia metropolitan area. The proposed policy outlines a clear plan for recalculation of the AMI, including the collection of data, calculation method, and timeline for recalculation. The proposal also provides a strong justification for the recalculation, highlighting the need for affordable housing in the City of Detroit and the discrepancy between the current AMI and the median income of households within the city.

By recalculating the AMI for the City of Detroit based on city-specific data and metrics, this policy proposal will ensure that affordable housing programs are tailored to the needs of the city and accessible to the vast majority of residents in Detroit city proper. The proposed policy also provides a clear implementation plan, outlining the responsibilities for implementation and public notice.

In conclusion, this policy proposal represents a significant step forward in addressing the affordable housing crisis in the City of Detroit. By recalculating the AMI based on city-specific data and metrics, the proposal will help ensure that affordable housing programs are accessible to low-income households in the city. It is our hope that the Detroit City Council will consider this proposal and take action to support affordable housing for all residents of the City of Detroit.

ChatGPT input: Please write an effective policy to recalculate area median income for the city of Detroit based on data and metrics of residents of the city of Detroit itself instead of using the HUD Detroit-Dearborn-Livonia metropolitan area. It should be clear that the change is in support of making affordable housing affordable to the vast majority of residents in Detroit city proper. Make it very specific and include more legal language so it is longer and able to be submitted to Detroit city council for review.

The area constituting of Detroit and several suburban neighborhoods going out to the edge of Livonia is what is known as the Detroit Housing Market area. This whole area is what is considered “Detroit” when looking at the city housing market, despite obvious economic disparities.

Calculated as the middle/average income across the HUD area mentioned above, for “Detroit” this is calculated as $91k. This number compared to the actual Detroit city average income of $31k, is a travesty. By including suburban areas it artificially inflates these numbers and disparately affects low income families

Currently, “affordable” housing is defined as 30% of one’s yearly income. Using HUD numbers, this would equate to roughly $30k a year for housing. Compared to the average city income, this would mean HALF of all residents in the city could not afford any new affordable housing units built under basic guidelines

A new form of AMI calculation that better represents the income distribution across the populace. By measuring the number of households at certain income levels instead of the total wealth of an area, we can better weigh how much residents can afford

The adoption of a new Weighted Average Method of calculation will hopefully lead to more equitable and affordable housing across the city and encourage developers to build more housing at all levels of economic ability instead of just luxury or affordable

9(a) HUD DetroitDearbornLivonia

9(b) Area Median Income

9(c) Affordable Housing

9(d) Weighted Average Method

9(e) Calculation Method

By providing a clear repeatable timeline, this policy will ensure that as global economic changes occur the city will keep up in defining what is affordable for the vast majority of the masses.

Much like affordability, the poverty line is also calculated based on the previously defined factors. This is carried to the point where poverty in Detroit and the median are only $7k difference. This means the vast majority of Detroiters are not only spending their hard earned money on housing, but that they can afford little else after such as emergency medical care

Detroit is a city struggling to contest with issues of constructed vacancy, segregation, and unequal resource distribution. Almost a third of all households within city limits fall below the poverty line, and yet little has been done to change any of this at the systematic level.

As high wealth investment continues to flow into the city, little of the benefits are trickling down to all residents benefit. This has led to an influx of unfordable housing and other resources, leading to the forced vacancy of many an existing resident or business.

The responsibility to reaffirm and regrow Detroit should not fall squarely on the individual citizenship base, nor entirely on the municipal government. Rather a burden should be spread across those governmental groups who have within their power to make necessary changes and among the people to act on them.

Timeline of Recalculation

Implement Responsibility

Having an informed populace is a necessary component to a thriving metropolis. By keeping both lawmakers and residents informed to how the city is being measured, it will keep legislators and developers accountable to their actions in providing affordability.

Legislation should move and evolve with time to afford more opportunity and benefit for its constituents. This five year timer gives a set period of action trying to fight back against current predatory policies, after which its effectiveness will be reexamined and necessary changes made

Policies are only effective if they are acted upon in a timely and purposeful manner. They also require a considerable amount of transparency for the public to maintain trust and cooperation with wider goals. Public plans like these help bridge that gap between legislators and residents.

Yearly Cost Beyond Income Ability

CONCLUSIONS

As much work as any individual or community group may put into cities like Detroit, at the end of the day many of the challenges they face are structural. Embedded and codified into the laws, policies, initiative, and practices created and maintained by lawmakers are systems that intentionally work against the people that live within them.

This catalog is not to be an end-all-be-all book of solutions for the city of Detroit, nor are we even saying that these policies will even solve the very problems that they are addressing. What they are doing is restructuring the traditional models of control, ownership, and stewardship that have done little to support the kind of changes that cities like Detroit needs to re-imagine itself in the future. It is a thoroughly explored catalog of options, that can be presented to those with the agency to make these kind of changes, and lacks the opportunity to make excuses that the legal language or ideological frameworks are not present to try

The hope is that over time and effort, the continuing population of Detroit can internalize and spread these ideas of reclamation, not only of material and land but of culture and responsibility. In a space where political entities prioritize the economic, the citizens are left to bolster the social through their shared support

REPLICABILITY

This publication, though static and singular right now, is meant to work in a larger sense as a template. A system of collection and curation through textual, visual and legal mediums that works beyond the single example instance of Detroit. There are many urban spheres where the wills and whims of both lawmakers and designers wash out the voices of the many who are left to deal with their repercussions, and their calls and propositions deserve to be heard as well.

Through the use of new mediums of idea iteration like text-based AI, anyone regardless of where they are in the world can begin to make their own versions of the projects seen here, collate them, and publish them to their own land stewards. Thus shaping the urban landscape with new models of ownership, inhabitation, and construction.

This is also not to be seen as a one-stop solution to all problems, where other designers and passionate leaders may repeat the same process for Detroit on a yearly basis to give to its lawmakers.. This way, as the city evolves and adapts to the changes brought about by this catalog, the catalog itself can adjust to the new challenges that will evolve from its use.

POSITIONALITY

“As someone who has grown up in the suburbs of metroDetroit in a white middle-class family, I have grown aware of the continually evolving challenges that surround residents of Detroit proper, but I lack any first hand knowledge of what it is like to live within the city or any of the struggles that come from being in a marginalized community. Through this project, I wanted to understand more about what Detroit residents have experienced in the destruction of their city, how their relationship with the city and its stewards have changed over time, and how they view their relationship with their fellow community members”

Jacob White (Authur/Editor)

WORKS CITED/REFERENCED

1. Alan Latham and Jack Layton, “Social infrastructure and the public life of cities: Studying urban sociality and public spaces,” Geography Compass 13 (2019): unpaginated.

2. Baldwin J Stewart Brand and Point (Foundation). 1986. The Essential Whole Earth Catalog : Access to Tools and Ideas First ed. Garden City New York: Doubleday & Company.

3. Brown, David, ed. The Available City. Chicago Architecture Biennial, 2022.

4. Detroit Future City : 2012 Detroit Strategic Framework Plan.” Book, 2013.

5. Durst, Douglas, Ingels, Bjarke, Rappaport, Nina, Andrachuk, James, and Benner, Andrew. “Social Infrastructure : New York.” Book. Edward P. Bass Distinguished Visiting Architecture Fellowship ; 08. New Haven, Conn.: Yale School of Architecture, 2015.

6. Escobar, Arturo. “Designs for the Pluriverse : Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds.” Book. New Ecologies for the Twenty-First Century. Durham: Duke University Press, 2018.

7. “From Fallow : 100 Ideas for Abandoned Urban Landscapes.” Book. [Novato, Calif.]: ORO Editions, 2019.

8. Moreira, Susanna. “What Is Placemaking?” ArchDaily. ArchDaily, May 27, 2021. https://www.archdaily.com/961333/what-isplacemaking?ad_source=search&ad_medium=search_result_all.

9. Orum, Anthony M. and Neal, Zachary P. “Common Ground? : Readings and Reflections on Public Space.” Book. Metropolis and Modern Life. New York: Routledge, 2010.

10. “Palaces for the People : How Social Infrastructure Can Help Fight Inequality, Polarization, and the Decline of Civic Life.” Book. New York: Crown, 2018.

11. “Tactical Urbanism : Short-Term Action for Long-Term Change.” Book. Washington, [District of Columbia]: Island Press, 2015.

12. “The Architecture of Neoliberalism : How Contemporary Architecture Became an Instrument of Control and Compliance.” Book. London: Bloomsbury Academic, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2016.

13. “The Arsenal of Exclusion & Inclusion.” Book. New York ; Barcelona: Actar Publishers, 2017

14. “The Mushroom at the End of the World : On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins.” Book. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press, 2015.

[Re]clamation aims to challenge the current model of the urban self-starter as the go-to method for urban regeneration for both Detroit designers and lawmakers.

Through the co-opting of the DIY catalog model, this thesis proposes the creation of a counter-catalog that instead of directing the individual to solve their own challenges, redirects the target audience to Detroit lawmakers with a catalog of proposed legal options and their subsequent built imaginaries.

In creating and disseminating this catalog, the goal is to direct and distill the voices of the countless individuals working on these issues into demands pointed at those with the agency to address them through new subversive legislature.

Ultimately, this publication will make clear to those planning Detroit’s future what possibilities exist beyond the normative, and what they can specifically do to make them reality.