State and local governments can't run deficits, so a collapsing local economy acts like a fiscal vise; capital improvement debts aren't easily rescheduled, so you have reduced tax bases carrying long term debt payments (possibly with nonlinear, back-loaded schedules), and so operations are squeezed and capital improvements are stopped. Once you're in that trap, you can't get out; people and companies who can move will, those who can't become cost sinks as per capita operational costs rise. Without some emergency stabilization mechanism for discharging debt and dealing with necessary operations and improvements, there's no way for a town to return to equilibrium.

The same dynamics can be seen with companies that operate on a negative cash flow basis and who fail to properly buffer a period of improved revenue that later reverts to the mean -- short-term prosperity can mean long-term impovershment.

Oh, I get that! I'm not trying to blame Flint in the slightest.

I was just trying to explain what aspects of the pictures could cause "a loss of words" for an unfamiliar viewer.

Because a building burned down? It would be nice if they fenced it off, so it shows a lack of resources, but I'm not sure that view really indicates what you say it does.

Maybe that's normal looking in the rust belt, but it's unfamiliar looking to me as well. (Can't speak for the Swede, but I suspect they're surprised for similar reasons)

There is:

1) A burned down building (which has been in that state for some time)

2) Boarded up storefronts

3) Plants growing over the unused fences, which themselves are starting to fall over

4) The lots behind the fences look to have been empty for decades

5) Visibly aging concrete

6) Crumbling sidewalks with plants coming up between the tiles

7) at least 3 of the 5 vehicles are from no newer than ~1998

Combine that with the overcast weather, and the bleak color palette of the remaining buildings, and it looks pretty depressing. :(

Maybe it's not representative: maybe on a sunnier day, the greenery would make it look lush and liveable, but as it stands it's definitely an unfortunate looking Street View, that one...

I'm not saying it doesn't show signs of a neglected area, I just think you're reading too much into certain aspects which may be explained through the area in which the picture was taken.

I'm not sure how long the building has been in that state, but I would imagine less than a year from the vegetation, but that's hard to judge if it all dies in winter. Then again, vegetation usually grows very quickly in those areas. That said, small municipalities move slower, they have less leeway in the budget to deal with unforeseen circumstances.

A lot of what you're stated seems to indicate that you see the open areas here as a sign of neglect or failure. Often in rural areas, building are much more spread out unless they are are towards the town center. There's no reason to build next to someone if you can have a lot or two between you and them. As a city expands, these are naturally filled in as sparse building pushes farther out from the town center and some people don't want to be that far out.

As for the sidewalks and concrete, areas with wet winters that continually fluctuate between freezing and non-freezing temperatures are particularly bad on brick and concrete buildings. The continual expansion of the water when it turns into ice and back into water quickly destroys concrete in these areas. Michigan is known to be particularly bad.

In truth, looking down GlenWood Ave from that picture looks fairly pleasant to me. This could easily be a few hundred feet in either of the towns my parents are from in rural Wisconsin, and much of those towns looks fairly pleasant, if extremely spread out, to my eyes.

For comparison, here's another random spot I found by just choosing a place in google maps and zooming in[1]. Every town has some run-down areas if it's old enough, but having a run-down area doesn't necessarily mean the economy is dead (but I'm not disputing that the economy is likely bad, just that the picture is more indicative of an area than a situation).

1: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0188356,-83.6795166,3a,75y,1...

I could absolutely be wrong about some of those! As I said, I'm not familiar with the Rust Belt. My view is almost exclusively superficial.

Flint and Detroit have huge sections of the city like this. It isn't just a street or two. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKQSPJWK5w0

Not just that it burned down. Note that there are weeds growing up the side of the charred wall. It burned down and then nothing was done about it for months.

Besides extra fencing, what should have been done? It's obvious they aren't hurting for space there, so there's not necessarily a great reason to rebuild in that spot even if the owner wanted to rebuild. It's also entirely possibly it was a derelict building, and may not really be owned by anyone. None of these speak well for the economy in the area, but they definitely don't make the "death of the city's economy is completely evident".

In some areas, work that needs to be done by the town or county may take a while. Sometimes that's the nature of living in a rural area.

Yeah, their choice makes economic sense.

I'm not blaming Flint (or any other town in the Rust Belt), just pointing out concrete items that could leave unfamiliar people "at a loss for words".

FWIW, I did some digging on this property. It burned in April of this year. Clearly arson. It was the site of a seedier than average strip club that has opened and closed a couple of different times in the past 5 years.

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2015/04/watch_as_f...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3051467/MASSIVE-fire...

Under the circumstances, this seems to support the notion of a dying city perhaps giving up.

That could be from any town across much of the North. It's not like it's hard to find abandoned buildings much of anywhere....