Talk:Planned shrinkage

message: This article is in need of improvement.  --StevenL 22:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to me, the language of the article is very unencyclopedic. --Äþelwulf <Small>See my contributions.</Small> 06:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. Tagged as such. 68.39.174.238 04:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That sentence is actually lifted from the abstract itself; see the parallel citation in The Bronx#References. I haven't read the actual article or its supporting documentation myself, so I can't judge how well-founded the conclusion is, but it is strong worded, which is one reason why (regardless of my own personal political inclinations) I put a balancing footnote into The Bronx#References quoting a representative "rent-control leads to arson" argument. It might be better to acknowledge that the cited language comes (in)directly from the source, rather than implying it represents some consensus of Wikipedia editors. Shakescene (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs improvement

message: It seems to me there should also be mention of Roger Starr and his tenure at the Citizens Housing and Planning Council of New York.  It was there that some of the planned shrinkage ideas were first circulated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.149.161.49 (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Roger Starr

message: What a fascinating topic, I'd love to learn more but am not an expert in this area and this don't feel fully competent to edit the main article.  I will say that redevelopment emminent domain is facilitated by "blighted" areas.  To the extent to which essential city services are withdrawn, ostensibly you'd think that housing demand would fall, rents would fall, property values decline, landlords would then have less capital and incentive to make repairs.  This could lead to a re-development blight study for the purpose of bulldozing an older rent-controlled apartment building so that a developer can come in and get redevelopment subsidies to build new housing.  This is arguably a form of corporate welfare/pork barrell spending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.33.128 (talk) 09:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Corporate warfare / pork barrel spending 

message: Arson was the major cause of fires, and this was due to high inflation during the 1970s and restrictive rent control policies in NYC. The net result was that buildings were worth more dead (for the insurance money) than alive (as very low return investments). 75.69.119.203 (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Sharp comment. Thanks. Added. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Arson

message: 30 fires every two hours? Shouldn't that be reduced to an hourly rate instead, especially since it's so easy? 142.162.76.117 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea; please fix. But we like to challenge peoples' math skills here at Wikipedia :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Fire Statistics?

message: I'm surprised this article makes no mention of Detroit, given the number of articles about this strategy in that city.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.114.68 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey good observation. Do you know how to add information followed by a reference?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  
Jarble (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detroit Anyone?