Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Did you know that Obama is considering forcibly relocating people and bulldozing their neighborhoods?

Dozens of US cities may have entire neighborhoods bulldozed as part of drastic "shrink to survive" proposals being considered by the Obama administration to tackle economic decline.

Can you think of any other leaders in the history of the world who have forcibly relocated some of it's citizens? I can name Stalin for one......Sounds like something Obama just might do.

39 Answers

  • .
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    It's not something the National government should come close to getting involved in. If a city wants to do it, fine. Because then the people in the city can fight it and keep it to what may be needed. Demolition and destruction are natural processes of an economy and a city. Sometimes whole neighborhoods have to go.

    One problem is the Kelo v New London decision -- the National Court gave to much leeway to city's to condemn property -- allowing condemnation simply to increase property values, or for what the city officials determine as a social good. Too broad!

    Natural law: if a neighborhood harbors pestilence or otherwise endangers the population -- rats, disease, mayhem, riot, constant criminality -- it may be condemned and torn down in whole.

    Side Note 1: Obama also demands that Israel tear down Jewish neighborhoods.

    Side Note 2: Obama has totally ruined the natural, established demolition process in the auto, banking and insurance sectors of the economy. He has turned the process into MASSIVE CRIMINAL graft, extortion, racketeering, bribery, and theft. That's what this national project would become as well.

  • 1 decade ago

    I have mixed feelings about this. Obviously I believe government is bad, especially when it interferes with our personal lives. However, I happen to live halfway between Flint and Detroit, two cities on the list. Flint is hopeless, I'm afraid. It's been declining since the '80s when GM started shutting down Buick. You would not believe the sadness, depression and dilapidation there. It's staggering. People have talked about bulldozing Flint long before Obama came on the scene. It should be something the voters do, though. Seriously, the city is so bad I'm afraid to go to work there, and when I do, I have an escort walk me to and from my car even in daylight. Flint has a great airport, a fully-appointed University of Michigan campus and many other thriving businesses that deserve to be left alone. It has a good medical center too.

    In contrast, I am not afraid to walk alone in Detroit, during the day or night, and I have had to do both during the course of my job. Detroit has implemented several initiatives, started by talented businesspeople with vision and resources, and I believe the city will improve. It is too far gone to be restored, but it can definitely get better. I attend some of the economic development meetings and some county executive meetings, and I believe in what these people are trying to do. Huge accomplishments have been made, and now that we have a good mayor and some grant money, more good things will come.

    It is wrong from a human standpoint to sit back and let the people of Flint suffer and wallow in drug addiction, depression, homelessness and filth. It's disgusting and sad. However, government is not the answer, but if the citizens of the city want it bulldozed, they should have that right. All they have to lose is rats, cockroaches, drug houses and gang hangouts. The thing is, if they bulldoze the city, then the homeless people will have to be taken care of, and Michigan cannot afford to help them. It's a disasster, and there are no easy solutions. Contrary to popular opinion, Obama is definitely not the answer.

    Michigan has been a socialist state for a long time, and what has happened here is going to happen to the rest of the country eventually. Powerful unions, high business and property taxes and a generous welfare system killed us. It's too late, and I think it's too late for America too. By 2010, when we can elect a new Congress, the Liberal Triumvirate of Pelosi, Reid and Obama will have taken us so far that we can never come back.

    Sorry for the depressing outlook, but I live it and I have watched it happen. I can't listen to that song "Shuttin' Detroit Down" without crying. I don't see any good solutions, not with the leadership we have and the direction we're going. I love my country, and it's so sad to see what's happening here.

  • He's calling it "shrink to survive"?

    I call it "electoral busing".

    This is nothing more than an excuse for him to relocate his "gimme voters" out of their self made ghettos into much nicer conservative communities, so he can change red districts into blue districts. A few abandoned houses and a whole neighborhood will naturally have to come down. And of course then the residents will need to be moved elsewhere because of the time it will take to complete the destruction and the danger to them while it's being done.

    Why do you think he's got ACORN working so closely with the census bureau? They're checking to see which communities in key states are guilty of not having enough "gimme voters". Those communities will soon be getting an influx of "gimme voters" all voting hard-line liberal in gratitude for getting them out of their ghettos.

    And of course, this will all be timed carefully to move them into their new neighborhoods just in time for the 2010 election. Because he knows the Dem/Socialist/Marxists are in serious trouble of losing control if he doesn't do something really drastic.


    Edit: For those lemmings that claim only the abandoned buildings will be targeted, you have no idea what you're talking about. Every metropolitan area in the country is doing these studies to determine which neighborhoods should be "relocated". Here are the study results for the Oklahoma City area.

    Tract 1014, 1015, 1069.1, and 1078.5 are all predominantly low income black neighborhoods. Tract 1039 is the area where most of the illegals live. All five areas are filled to the brim with gangs, drugs and lots of crime. The 21-27% of the population that fled these areas were the only good people that lived there and they left to get away from all of that.

    If you think that the plan is to only level the vacant houses and leave the rest of the ghettos standing, then think again. The plan is to claim they're breaking up these gangs, but in reality they'll just be spreading them out to the outlying communities to let us deal with them and all the crime they bring with them, while the Democrats get the votes they'll hand them for putting them in neighborhoods with "fresh meat".

    Source(s): Duh... "The emptiest neighborhoods in the Oklahoma City metro area for the first quarter of 2009. Information is from the U.S. Census Bureau, the United States Postal Service and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development."
  • 1 decade ago

    Currently, Obama is only forcibly closing and bulldozing American business (car dealerships) thousand of citizens livelihoods have been disrupted for the Greater good of society so he would claim. But who would have ever thought an American president would forcibly steal citizens private business.

    Unfortunately it is not that much of a bigger step to relocating families should he feel it is in the best interest of his socialistic plan for America

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    What a short and selective memory you have.

    President Lincoln.

    President Grant.

    Spearheaded and relocated more American Indians to lands of not

    their choosing than most Presidents before and after them. Obama

    will create his own form of Reparations. he is doing it every day in

    one form or another. If he continues this path, The American Indian

    movement has the right to have all Native lands to be returned to

    our caretaking. Just trying to show a different side.

  • 1 decade ago

    The proposal is being put forth by the cities and the Obama administration is considering them. That is what is done in government. Not just saying no and throwing out catch phases and talking points like the Republican leadership.

  • 1 decade ago

    That is arguably the most ate-up thing I've heard regarding this administration so far. Keynesian economics at their best. Let's spend trillions we don't have, and that have no positive effect, and bulldoze cities and drive people from their homes when bailouts are proven ineffective. Nice going Dems

  • 1 decade ago

    He's planning on bringing in his buddy Tony Rezko to build more sub standard homes for the poor and screw the tax payers out of millions of dollars then 0bama will defend him and get a great deal on a house!

    Ahhh, the good ol' days.

  • 1 decade ago


    Not sure about this one... although it may seem like a good idea on paper, I doubt that anyone would ever actually want to or really try this.

    I don't thing Obama, Bush or even the NWO would want to do that.

    And if they did, I think it would be a dire reason.




Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.