Saturday, October 18, 2008

WORD OF THE DAY: "Domicide," The Death Of Homes

Photo By "Kevin"

My map-obsessed buddy from the Humphrey Institute, Dave Arbit, told me about a term one of his professors throws around in class...

Which is "domicide," and it means "the death of homes." I don't think the professor in question, Jeff Krump of the College of Design, coined the term. In fact, there is a book with that title, click here, and also the word can be found at Urban Dictionary, to which I am both an editor and a contributor.

Or maybe Professor Jeff Krump DID coin it. Who knows? Anybody who KNOWS can chime in on the comments section.

I'm glad to have learned of the word (and the book) from Jeff Krump, via Dave Arbit.

OK, technically I looked the book up on my own, but all the same Dave Arbit has contributed substantially to my current reading list. Right now I'm reading two books about public housing projects and "the making of the second ghetto." Now, soon enough, I'll have to read up on "Domicide."

How Tearing Down Homes Makes A Certain Twisted Sense

But I was thinking about it and I realized, huh, some of this might make a certain twisted logical sense. Say, for example, Poor And Troubled Family X lives in a house in North Minneapolis. Maybe they rent the house, maybe they own it, for purposes of my hypothetical, it doesn't matter. But every year, the house generates a certain amount of revenue in the form of taxes and utility payments, less the ACTUAL cost to the City of Minneapolis of, say, the water and garbage pickup.

OK, now let us say Poor And Troubled Family X costs the City of Minneapolis money every year, in the form of numerous 911 calls to the house--each of which is surprisingly costly--and social services for the children, and bogging down the justice system, and damaging the property of their neighbors, and so forth. EVERY YEAR, troubled family X manages to cost the City of Minneapolis more money than the City captures in taxes, fines, fees and utility revenue.

Then one day...oh, my word. The house becomes vacant! And it's a run down house, so either it will fall into the hands of a slumlord--the most likely scenario, who will find a Troubled Family Y and Z to put in the house--after converting it to a duplex--or some yuppied family will lavish attention and money on the house, and make it their dream Victorian. NOT AS LIKELY AS THE FIRST ONE.

At this point, what is the City of Minneapolis going to be thinking? They're going to think: TEAR THE HOUSE DOWN!!! In the long run, a vacant lot will decrease housing density, and raise the value of the houses around it, and--most important--no more Troubled Family X racking up a zillion 911 calls and costing the City of Minneapolis more money than it takes in.

I'm sure these ideas must be somewhere in that book about domicide. I will have to read the book, I guess, to see if my presumption is correct.

Until You Realize It's Just STUPID

But I don't see tearing down homes as a solution to ANYTHING, not unless the houses are truly ready to fall down on their own or somebody is ready--ready at THAT MOMENT--to build something bigger and better on that spot of ground.

Destruction of homes for the sake of some fiscal bottom line in a bean counter's argument is a ridiculous proposition which is out of sync with the earth, rather like the idea of "spending your way to prosperity," which allegedly works fine...except when you start to factor THE ENVIRONMENT into the equation.

There are only so many resources on earth--including nice old houses--and lavishly bulldozing those resources because of some twisted Bureaucratic Bean Counter Math From Hell is just STUPID.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's interesting you bring this up now and also your comment in the other topic about Kemps wanting our properties for expansion. I've been hearing rumors for a long time now (more in recent days), that my block - the 2100 block of 6th is being eyed by the City for destruction because of this very thing.

Yes, we have vacant houses, tear downs and more tear downs scheduled, but all the 911 calls we've made about problems are not the result of problem people living on this block. They're from problem properties on the next block - 2207 6th, 614 22nd, 610 22nd.

These are the gang properties, the drug dealing properties, but the people who live here have the sense not to do the majority of their selling in front of their own house. They do it in front of all the surrounding properties on my block.

Now we're going to pay the price for problem families the City has turned a blind eye to for years? For instance, 614 22nd (an owner occupied property) has been plaguing us for over 10 years. You know the story with 2207.

Months and months ago, I sent a message - a very detailed message to our Council Member about this very phenomenon, but never got a reply. I resent it and still no reply. Maybe this is why? The more problem properties that go unresolved, the bigger the case the City has for taking my block even though the problem properties are not on my block.

I find this disturbing to say the least. I also find it disturbing that this might be happening now when property values are dropping like a rock. How convenient for Kemps to be in bed with the City, assuming of course this is not just a nasty rumor.

Johnny Northside said...

Kevin: I have no agenda on this matter. I pretty much print what I hear so people can have an opportunity to discuss it.

Your discussion is very substantive and I hope as you hear more and document more you will send it my way.

There are indeed some houses that are wrecks and need to be torn down. The Kemps expansion rumors continue to be just that: rumors. If somebody has something SUBSTANTIVE, I'd be glad to hear it and probably publish it.

Anonymous said...

I did not actually coin the term. It comes from the book you cited.

Oh, for the record the name is Crump not Krump!

Enjoy the blog!