[ad_1]
After decades of population loss, Detroit is finally growing again. This trend reversal is starting a wave of change in Detroit that can be seen across the city’s neighborhoods. It’s taking many forms: renovated homes and duplexes, larger rehabilitations, and brand new developments all point to an increased demand for quality housing. Although Detroiters have generally welcomed this new growth, individual projects will still generate some local pushback.
A proposal to add affordable housing units in the neighborhood to the north of Boston-Edison is one of the latest conflict points. The long-vacant office building, at 9851 Hamilton Ave. near Glynn Court, is slated to be redeveloped into 49 apartments. But two neighbors of the development are making a case in court and the media that the city should stop the redevelopment of this building as housing. Their campaign continues despite a ruling by the Board of Zoning Appeals, which rejected the request to overturn an April 2025 Buildings, Safety Engineering, and Environmental Department (BSEED) decision to allow the project to move forward.
Kyle Scannell, whose three-quarter acre property immediately borders the project, recently filed a second lawsuit against BSEED after successfully delaying the project with a previous suit. Meanwhile, another nearby resident, Carole Hall, penned an unusually blunt opinion piece whose main idea is that developing residential apartment buildings is “bad” for the neighborhood.
The reasons given by both residents for their opposition are both scattershot and questionable. Both are oddly concerned about parking availability in the area, even though the surrounding street parking is virtually never occupied. They also raise the specter of “blight” and “crime” that they claim is inevitable with having more neighbors living nearby.
Scannell claims in his latest suit that he “would not have bought his home if he knew the building behind it would become [an apartment building],” and that he’s going to suffer irreparable financial harm from this development. However, it was his choice to purchase a home directly adjacent to a long-established R5 (high-density) residential zone, which explicitly is designated for apartment dwellings. Affordable housing seekers shouldn’t have to bear the burden of Scannell’s failure to exercise due diligence with his home purchase.
Hall dismisses the need for additional housing by pointing to the “abundance of available and affordable housing” in the North End. That’s a claim anyone who has searched for a home or an apartment recently would dispute, and rings hollow coming from someone who, by their own admission, hasn’t had to search for housing in many years. Hall claims that these developments amount to a “transfer of generational wealth” from nearby residents to developers. Her portrayal of this as a battle between greedy developers and long-suffering residents is off the mark — rather, this is a one-sided attack by wealthy homeowners on affordable housing seekers who would dare live near them.
I live on a nearby block, in the same neighborhood as 9851 Hamilton, which is experiencing similar change. On one end, a long-vacant building was renovated in 2019, and on the other, a brand-new apartment building was recently built. It is true that there have been some annoyances that come with these developments. But these small gripes should not give me or anyone else the right to exercise a veto over someone else’s ability to live in my neighborhood.
The tactics of these two residents are lifted straight from expensive coastal cities like New York and San Francisco, where wealthy residents use their resources in order to halt the development of more housing in their backyard. Too often, they get their way, as they form a sustained and vocal minority that abuse the public participation opportunities built into the development process. There’s rarely anyone advocating for the broader benefits of development and for the residents who would be able to live in a newly renovated home.
Detroit and its residents cannot afford for these obstructionist tactics to succeed in this instance and take root here more generally. Our population recovery is still fragile; sustaining it depends on adding more houses and apartments where residents can live. Creating a Detroit that has the resources to ensure all residents can thrive requires a larger tax base to fund needed city services. Let’s increase the general welfare, keep our city’s renaissance going, and put these vacant land and buildings to productive use by ignoring these narrow-minded objections.
Related
[ad_2]
James McBroom
Source link
