They don't want to move.

[AllanY2525]

I would think that the city is able to use eminent domain, if they can show that
the removal of the few remaining houses was for a "greater public good".

I think that the compensation given to the owner to leave the home should be
something in line with the average property value for that neighborhood - this
seems fair and equitable.  The owner of the home could easily purchase another
comparable house somewhere in that neighborhood if they want to stay.

The city M-U-S-T remove a substantial portion of the current city streets in order
to relieve itself of the financial burdens of maintaining such a large infrastructure
with so little money coming in via tax revenues. 

The city' water system is riddled with leaks (the average age of the water mains is
about 60 + years).  I read an article a while back that stated the city loses about 25% of
its fresh water supply to leakage in the system.   Just shutting off the buried water mains
when removing a vacant street would help this problem.

[jay]

If the objective is to remove people from sparsely populated streets, then the city has to do everything possible to get them to move. 

I wish we could know the cost of providing city services to a given length of street over time.  These costs would include trash service, water, water line upkeep, waste water, storm water, fire protection, police protection, road maintenance, snow removal and more.  I'm sure there are high costs to provide private utilities such as telephone, electricity, and cable.

[northside lurker]

When the city buys out one of these remaining residents, does the homeowner have to move to another home within the city or is the homeowner free to move to the suburbs?   The offered price wouldn't buy much in the burbs.

I don't know.  I imagine they are just given the money to move, and can choose where they want to go.

I see the potential for a scam here.  What is to prevent an unscrupulous person from buying the few remaining homes on a targeted street and then hold out for an increasing sales price?[/size]

I agree.  But, there are a couple factors that would work against a scam.  First, it would be easy to know how long a home was owned, to know whether the owner was sincere in their desire to stay.  Second, the offer to move is voluntary.  If a person decides they want to hold out for a higher price, they city might just let them keep the property, and withdraw the offer.

[jay]

When the city buys out one of these remaining residents, does the homeowner have to move to another home within the city or is the homeowner free to move to the suburbs?   The offered price wouldn't buy much in the burbs.

I see the potential for a scam here.  What is to prevent an unscrupulous person from buying the few remaining homes on a targeted street and then hold out for an increasing sales price?

[northside lurker]

Youngstown on CNN again.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/15/real_estate/Youngstown_plan_roadblock/index.htm?postversion=2008042411