The Latest Obama Outrage -- Forced Relocation!

According to the Telegraph newspaper in England, President Barack Obama has signed onto a plan to "shrink" cities in the U.S.

The government looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, one of the poorest US cities, which involves razing entire districts and returning the land to nature.

The radical experiment is the brainchild of Dan Kildee, treasurer of Genesee County, which includes Flint (MI).

The plan is to focus on 50 U.S. cities "most" of which are in the Mid-West Rust Belt region of the country. In Flint alone, Kildee wants the city to buy more than 4,000 houses, level them, and return most of the land to nature.

Mr Kildee, who has lived there nearly all his life, said he had first to overcome a deeply ingrained American cultural mindset that "big is good" and that cities should sprawl – Flint covers 34 square miles.

He said: "The obsession with growth is sadly a very American thing. Across the US, there's an assumption that all development is good, that if communities are growing they are successful...

I am glad that Kildee is happy with this notion; who cares if the rest of us like the idea?

Does Obama plan to buy up thousands of homes in 50 cities across the nation and destroy them? Once again, the question begs, with what money, Barack? Even at fire-sale prices, buying tens of thousands of home and paying the labor to level the buildings and clear the land will not come cheap.

And, despite assurances by Kildee that no one would be forced to move, if there are holdouts, they will certainly be taken to court and required to relocate against their will. The Supreme Court has already decided that the government can toss out pretty much anyone from his house if it improves the community in someone's eyes.

Further, if people refuse to relocate, the planned savings from consolidating public services will be lost.

Think, too, about the political disaster that deciding what neighborhoods will be taken and who will be forced to move. This administration couldn't even close a few car dealerships without their political motives called into question (full-disclosure, yes I did too).

It might be interesting to study what effect these relocation will have on political districts and electoral populations.

The city is buying up houses in more affluent areas to offer people in neighbourhoods it wants to demolish.

Here again comes the problem of who gets forced to sell and at how much of a loss? What happens to someone who lives in a "more affluent" area, but doesn't want to sell? Simple, the government buys around them, sub-divides the neighbor's houses and changes the quality of the neighborhood. The "more affluent" people would effectually be forced to sell their home at a greatly reduced price and leave their neighborhood or home town, should they want to maintain their lifestyle.

Call me cynical, but I see a direct parallel between this concept and the uber-liberal notion that we should all live in planned communities in urban centers. Could this be step one in a subversive mission to accomplish this?

It is all-too predictable what will happen in a few years when the economy comes back: these public-owned areas will be sold to friends and supporters who will re-develop the land, and again plant new, large, sprawling homes and mansions. Quite a scheme.

You just know this is not going to be pretty, effective, or cheap.