Detroit City Council set to vote on biggest land sale in city's history

[royce]

Shollin, it will be a tree farm. It will not have cows. You keep thinking this. Now, as it has been explained by several people, a tree farm generates taxes and eliminates the need for the city to HAVE TO spend money on upkeep, allowing the little money the city does have to go towards others services like police and fire.

One other thing that bothers me about the neighbors worring about a land grab is that they should have bought the land when they had the chance. However, I do know for a fact that the city doesn't make it easy on property owners next to vacant lots to buy them. For residents who live next to a lot that becomes vacant, they have first crack at buying the property, which is about $300. Now, what the city does that's totally wrong is that it not only charges $300 for the lot, but the new buyer has to pay the back taxes that the previous owners owe. That's wrong. The city's law department should be persuing those deliquent property tax owners, not adding that burden to the property owner next to the vacant lot who wants to buy it. As the new owners, they're going to be paying property taxes on the property. Why double tax them?

Now, if Hantz is only paying the $300 for the lot, then I have a problem with the sale. However, if he's paying the back taxes as well, then I don't have a problem with the sale. The property owners wanting the lots had an equal shot just as Hantz did. If in 40 years no one has made a move to make this land productive, why delay an opportunity to make it so?

[royce]

I'm confused about the location of these plots. If it is bounded by Mack to the north, St. Jean to the east, Jefferson to the south, and Van Dyke to the west. Then where in the world does Mt. Olivet come up. That's a cemetery at Six and Van Dyke or a street called Mt. Olivet off of Van Dyke, south of Six Mile. Which location is it?

[Richard]

I wonder what the costs are for the city to shut off services,it is not like turning off a switch,there will be rerouting and once that infrastructure is gone how many millions to replace it , who will cover those costs?

Fed law is natural gas lines out of service for more then two years must be removed from the ground by the convening authority ,who is covering that cost if there are gas lines.

Once you plant trees the roots will pretty much destroy everything.So if for instance it cost the city $800.000 to terminate services is it worth it?

They cannot just walk away and leave stuff in the ground,I have seen nowhere yet where they are paying the back taxes , maybe this is the perfect time to take advantage of the city being they are broke and all and the city is never going to progress ,next year you have a new mayor and CC things will look different.

[Shollin]

So this Hantz is just buying up land to plant trees and pay taxes on the land? Where does he make his money? According to his website he plans to grow crops and back in 2009 was talking about a for profit agricultural business. Before handing this guy land for pennies per square foot, wouldn't be wise to investigate the business plan? How do we know this is sustainable and the city of Detroit won't be foreclosing on this property in the future? If it was Matty Moroun who proposed this idea, no one would be on board.

[Richard]

So this Hantz is just buying up land to plant trees and pay taxes on the land? Where does he make his money? According to his website he plans to grow crops and back in 2009 was talking about a for profit agricultural business. Before handing this guy land for pennies per square foot, wouldn't be wise to investigate the business plan? How do we know this is sustainable and the city of Detroit won't be foreclosing on this property in the future? If it was Matty Moroun who proposed this idea, no one would be on board.

The Crains write up states that they have switch to trees ,most likely hardwoods being more profitable,I believe that was because of opposition from those who supply farmers market with produce,Agriculture taxes are pennies on the dollar so yes it is all about making a profit in the future from other then trees,nothing wrong with that but to believe that it will not cost the city in the start up prep work is well if you believe that I have a nice bridge for you and it will not cost you a dime.

It is not like they are buying a car and you are handing them the title,the city will incur hand over costs,ask what they are and how much is it then make a decision.

[Shollin]

I read an article that stated it would be 2 million to the city in turnover costs. I just don't understand why a wealthy stockbroker with no farming experience now wants to buy large swaths of land to plant trees. His proposals before have including growing crops for profit. People now want to rally the troops and sharpen their pitchforks to attack city council.

[Gistok]

I read an article that stated it would be 2 million to the city in turnover costs. I just don't understand why a wealthy stockbroker with no farming experience now wants to buy large swaths of land to plant trees. His proposals before have including growing crops for profit. People now want to rally the troops and sharpen their pitchforks to attack city council.

You really don't like to think outside the box, do you? The status quo is fine with you....

[Shollin]

You really don't like to think outside the box, do you? The status quo is fine with you....

So we just fork over land because it's outside of the box? I'm not against the project but before I sell the land I would want some concrete plan in place. I guess thinking outside the box means you don't have to have an sustainable business plan in place.

[Richard]

I read an article that stated it would be 2 million to the city in turnover costs. I just don't understand why a wealthy stockbroker with no farming experience now wants to buy large swaths of land to plant trees. His proposals before have including growing crops for profit. People now want to rally the troops and sharpen their pitchforks to attack city council.

It is dirt in a major US city and with enough money and enough dirt you can change the look,like downtown.

Let's say 5 years down the road it becomes a gated community with security where would you want to live? It does have a nice location when you look at the bigger picture.

Once the deal is done it is done so sometimes it is better to take a deep breath and to look at all sides,I disagree with the CC on a lot of things but it is still thier responsibility the do the right thing and not make rash decisions that will effect long term.

[downtownguy]

I say bravo Detroit City Council for delaying the vote today and for calling for a public hearing.

From what I have read in news articles, the Hantz website, and so many "expert" opinions on both sides of the issue posted in this thread, I am inclined to support the project. However, I still have many unanswered questions including what are the exact locations of these properties, details of the agreement between the city and Hantz, what happens if Hantz doesn't adhere to the agreement, fair market value of the properties [[yes, even they have a market value), etc.

For those of you critical of Council [[and I am with you on a regular basis), they are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing: getting all the facts, allowing public discourse, digging into the detail of the agreement, and debating the merits of the plan in an open forum.

So much misinformation has been spewed here. They are not contiguous parcels. I did some rough math. The area described is about 2 square miles. 200 acres would occupy about 1/6th of that. According to the Hantz website, the plots would contain rows of trees on grass lots to be mowed and maintained by Hantz. The public would have access and there would be no fences. If not for the uproar, I would call these parks.

But, then there's this from an opinion piece published by the Michigan Citizen in July:

His proposal specifically excludes any agreement about future development. So, if farming doesn't work out, he is free to do whatever he wants with the land.

If indeed the agreement is so vague on issues like this, then some more due diligence is justified. It would be nice if the major media in this town would dig deeper on these points rather than parroting much of the pr coming from Hantz and offsetting that by ginning up the conflict in the community over the plan. But that might require some real journalism.

[Russix]

I really don't buy into the tree farm scam. If I could buy this much continuous property in the city[[for cheaper than a small mansion). I would build a Brazilian style suburban fortress with nice high walls and guards separating it from the Favelas.

http://globalperipheries.wordpress.c...burban-brazil/

[EZZ]

The parcels are concentrated on the east side in the area of Jefferson and Mack to St. Jean and Van Dyke.
You're kidding, right?

[Honky Tonk]

I say bravo Detroit City Council for delaying the vote today and for calling for a public hearing.

From what I have read in news articles, the Hantz website, and so many "expert" opinions on both sides of the issue posted in this thread, I am inclined to support the project. However, I still have many unanswered questions including what are the exact locations of these properties, details of the agreement between the city and Hantz, what happens if Hantz doesn't adhere to the agreement, fair market value of the properties [[yes, even they have a market value), etc.

For those of you critical of Council [[and I am with you on a regular basis), they are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing: getting all the facts, allowing public discourse, digging into the detail of the agreement, and debating the merits of the plan in an open forum.

So much misinformation has been spewed here. They are not contiguous parcels. I did some rough math. The area described is about 2 square miles. 200 acres would occupy about 1/6th of that. According to the Hantz website, the plots would contain rows of trees on grass lots to be mowed and maintained by Hantz. The public would have access and there would be no fences. If not for the uproar, I would call these parks.

But, then there's this from an opinion piece published by the Michigan Citizen in July:



If indeed the agreement is so vague on issues like this, then some more due diligence is justified. It would be nice if the major media in this town would dig deeper on these points rather than parroting much of the pr coming from Hantz and offsetting that by ginning up the conflict in the community over the plan. But that might require some real journalism.

So let me put the question to you again, WHAT is the condition of or is being done with this precious piece of property for the last 50 years, and what are the chances that someone is going to come in, erect a magical factory, and employ thousands of unskilled Detroiters @ $35 an hour? You actually expect someone someday to come in and start throwing money @ all this because why? Because it's "Detroit"?

[corktownyuppie]

I really don't buy into the tree farm scam. If I could buy this much continuous property in the city[[for cheaper than a small mansion). I would build a Brazilian style suburban fortress with nice high walls and guards separating it from the Favelas.

http://globalperipheries.wordpress.c...burban-brazil/

Would your fortress need for police be limited only to its periphery?
Would you be willing to pay property tax on your fortress?

If so, I'm with you man. F the Favelas.

[stasu1213]

I would protest if I had lived in Indian Village, West Village, or Morningside. I would not want the stench of livestock manure blowing down or upwind to me and I have to smell it while being so close to the farms. A tree park does not make sense for the trees would have to mature 10 or so years in order to be in good use. I don't buy it

[Blueidone]

I just have a couple of things to add:

I worked for a real estate developer. He tried to by lots in this very vicinity to build housing for low to moderate income people. The cost was MUCH MORE than the $300 that Hantz is buying the land for.

As Gistok mentioned earlier, there are groups like Georgia Street Community Collective who are trying to teach people to grow their own food by producing fresh fruit and vegetables on these vacant lots. However, when the groups try to buy contiguous empty lots to create more urban gardens, they are charged MUCH MORE than the $300 per lot.

And as mentioned prior, the purchaser MUST pay the back taxes AND if there is/was a house on the lot, any back water bills must be paid as well.

Also, GSCC tried to purchase several contiguous lots and were told that they could not but more than the lot adjacent to what is currently owned, unless they became a "developer" and built housing on the land.

So this is my objection to the Hantz plan....make the playing field level first. If these lots had been offered to anyone at that price, with the City paying back taxes and water bills, my guess is that it wouldn't be laying vacant now.

At GSCC, there have been some problems with people stealing the plants right out of the ground because they are not allowed to put up a permanent fence on land they are only "borrowing" from the City. How easy would it be for people to simply uproot these trees, whether by vandalizing or theft, if they are not going to fence them in and protect them somehow?

Admittedly, something on the land is better than nothing, but I too, am very suspicious about the real intended purpose and the sweetheart deal this appears to be. The "purpose" seems to change everytime someone raises an objection to what is going to be grown. Which tells me none of the stated purposes are the REAL purpose.

[JVB]

I despise everything about the City Council, but I have to agree that the Hantz plan sounds like BS. For a tree farm to be viable I would think it would have to be a large contiguous area, and based on what I've see so far that isn't the case. There is no efficient way to farm a collection of individual lots.

So if we are to assume that his plans are not what he says they are, then we have to assume he is buying up the properties to hold until they increase in value, which is fine. Great actually. But how many special considerations and tax breaks should that entitle him to in that case?

Since there is no such thing as journalism anymore, I don't expect we'll be getting all the information any time soon. Which leaves us stuck depending on the City Council to make smart decisions for the city - something they have never been able to do.

[Honky Tonk]

"Georgia Street Community Collective who are trying to teach people to grow their own food by producing fresh fruit and vegetables on these vacant lots."

As much as I commend GSCC to try teaching the guy's hanging around the party stores how to grow their own F & V, I'd like to know how much tax revenue and jobs this plan creates? Also, if you've setup this garden in the middle of land that could @ some point be developed, now we are going to have yet another court battle, or else GSCC stands to make the proverbial financial "killing", IF @ some point in the future, that land IS developed. my other question is where is this "livestock" scenario is coming from?

[Hermod]

I just have a couple of things to add:

I worked for a real estate developer. He tried to by lots in this very vicinity to build housing for low to moderate income people. The cost was MUCH MORE than the $300 that Hantz is buying the land for.

As Gistok mentioned earlier, there are groups like Georgia Street Community Collective who are trying to teach people to grow their own food by producing fresh fruit and vegetables on these vacant lots. However, when the groups try to buy contiguous empty lots to create more urban gardens, they are charged MUCH MORE than the $300 per lot.

And as mentioned prior, the purchaser MUST pay the back taxes AND if there is/was a house on the lot, any back water bills must be paid as well.

Also, GSCC tried to purchase several contiguous lots and were told that they could not but more than the lot adjacent to what is currently owned, unless they became a "developer" and built housing on the land.

So this is my objection to the Hantz plan....make the playing field level first. If these lots had been offered to anyone at that price, with the City paying back taxes and water bills, my guess is that it wouldn't be laying vacant now.

At GSCC, there have been some problems with people stealing the plants right out of the ground because they are not allowed to put up a permanent fence on land they are only "borrowing" from the City. How easy would it be for people to simply uproot these trees, whether by vandalizing or theft, if they are not going to fence them in and protect them somehow?

Admittedly, something on the land is better than nothing, but I too, am very suspicious about the real intended purpose and the sweetheart deal this appears to be. The "purpose" seems to change everytime someone raises an objection to what is going to be grown. Which tells me none of the stated purposes are the REAL purpose.

What part of "quantity buy" escapes you?

If you go to a GM dealer to buy a car, you pay a certain price. If Hertz goes to GM and offers to buy a couple of thousand cars for rentals, they will get a significantly lower price.

Hantz is offering to take a significant quantity of vacant lots off the city's hands, clean them up, and put them back on the tax rolls [[albeit at the lower agricultural rate) with a prospect for development and a higher tax return at some unspecified future date.

[Honky Tonk]

What part of "quantity buy" escapes you?

If you go to a GM dealer to buy a car, you pay a certain price. If Hertz goes to GM and offers to buy a couple of thousand cars for rentals, they will get a significantly lower price.

Hantz is offering to take a significant quantity of vacant lots off the city's hands, clean them up, and put them back on the tax rolls [[albeit at the lower agricultural rate) with a prospect for development and a higher tax return at some unspecified future date.

"But just you wait, someday that land will be worth millions, billions maybe......."

[davewindsor]

I just have a couple of things to add:

I worked for a real estate developer. He tried to by lots in this very vicinity to build housing for low to moderate income people. The cost was MUCH MORE than the $300 that Hantz is buying the land for.

As Gistok mentioned earlier, there are groups like Georgia Street Community Collective who are trying to teach people to grow their own food by producing fresh fruit and vegetables on these vacant lots. However, when the groups try to buy contiguous empty lots to create more urban gardens, they are charged MUCH MORE than the $300 per lot.

And as mentioned prior, the purchaser MUST pay the back taxes AND if there is/was a house on the lot, any back water bills must be paid as well.

Also, GSCC tried to purchase several contiguous lots and were told that they could not but more than the lot adjacent to what is currently owned, unless they became a "developer" and built housing on the land.

So this is my objection to the Hantz plan....make the playing field level first. If these lots had been offered to anyone at that price, with the City paying back taxes and water bills, my guess is that it wouldn't be laying vacant now.

At GSCC, there have been some problems with people stealing the plants right out of the ground because they are not allowed to put up a permanent fence on land they are only "borrowing" from the City. How easy would it be for people to simply uproot these trees, whether by vandalizing or theft, if they are not going to fence them in and protect them somehow?

Admittedly, something on the land is better than nothing, but I too, am very suspicious about the real intended purpose and the sweetheart deal this appears to be. The "purpose" seems to change everytime someone raises an objection to what is going to be grown. Which tells me none of the stated purposes are the REAL purpose.

Here's my objection to your objection. You're making an apples to oranges comparison. Are you saying that your developer or the Georgia Street collection is offering to buy 1,600 for the same price? You can't just take the best 7 parcels and expect to get it for $300 a piece. You're buying in bulk. It's a package deal. Hantz Farms is going to take the crap with the good. If there's garbage on the lots or firebombed houses, he has to demolish them and clean up the garbage including old tires.

Read here http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in...ing_60000.html
"...we're also demolishing 120 structures that the city owns and we're removing the trash and taking over the maintenance cost of the property."

Where do they get the money from?
"The Hantz Group is a Southfield-based, 600-employee company with greater than $3 billion in assets and multiple companies that include investment banking and estate planning initiatives."

How much did they set aside for this initiative?
"It hopes to invest $30 million in the project and create the world's largest urban farm."

Have they ran a pilot test project?
"WWJ Radio reports that Hantz Farms acquired three acres for its venture last year and used it to grow trees."

Doesn't the test project on three acres prove it works and you're not getting a slumlord like Moroun or Michael Kelly? Did they not clean up the land and remove hundreds of tires and other garbage? Doesn't the test project give some indication of the risks involved with vandalism and theft? The trees are still there, aren't they? They've even agreed to plant 15,000 trees. http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/...#ixzz2Cqt45oJz They have to plant the trees. It's part of the agreement. The city can also negotiate other things like them not selling the land for 10 years.

So Hantz Farms has a proven track record and the money to make it happen. What else do you want? It's not like there's another offer for 1,600 parcels on the table.

Finally, the city will give property owners adjacent land to accomplish their own urban farm at a lower price than Hantz farms would be getting it at: "Councilwoman Saunteel Jenkins says residents like Floyd will be protected. Jenkins says before the final deal is done residents living next to abandoned city-owned lots will have an opportunity to purchase the land before Hantz Farms – at a lower price."

Your objections have no merit.

[davewindsor]

I wonder what the costs are for the city to shut off services,it is not like turning off a switch,there will be rerouting and once that infrastructure is gone how many millions to replace it , who will cover those costs?

Fed law is natural gas lines out of service for more then two years must be removed from the ground by the convening authority ,who is covering that cost if there are gas lines.

Once you plant trees the roots will pretty much destroy everything.So if for instance it cost the city $800.000 to terminate services is it worth it?

They cannot just walk away and leave stuff in the ground,I have seen nowhere yet where they are paying the back taxes , maybe this is the perfect time to take advantage of the city being they are broke and all and the city is never going to progress ,next year you have a new mayor and CC things will look different.

Why would the services need to be immediately terminated? What law are you talking about? Lets take your example. You have two serviced houses with 40 vacant parcels between them. As long as both houses get gas, why would the gas line between the two houses need to be terminated? What about new serviced subdivisions with only two houses in them? As long as both ends of the gas line have a house with a gas line attached to them, why would it need to be removed? And if both ends of a long run are not connected, the city can always connect it to another line so it complies with federal law instead of digging everything up.

I'm guessing that when most of these buildings that used to occupy these vacant lands were demolished that that the utility services where brought back to the street to comply with the law.

It will be a long time before the roots of a newly planted tree would reach a gas line. And by the time there would be a danger, the crop trees would probably be cut down and new trees would be planted in its place. These trees are not going to sit there for a hundred years like they would in a mature residential subdivision. It sounds like they are planting these trees in a controlled way [[like planting them in straight lines. I'm sure they can plant it in a controlled way so as not affect underground services.

[Hermod]

"But just you wait, someday that land will be worth millions, billions maybe......."

Yes, and maybe the last house I sold when I moved is sitting on top of the richest vein of gold the world has ever seen. When you make a deal, worry about what you are getting NOW and not what the other guy may get in the future.

[mikefmich]

Fed law is natural gas lines out of service for more then two years must be removed from the ground by the convening authority ,who is covering that cost if there are gas lines.

.

Curious, do you have some cite you could point to about your claim?

[Wesley Mouch]

What do we do about Detroit?

Its a place where a couple of mindsets have taken place:

1) Anyone from outside is the enemy. They're just trying to steal the jewels.

2) Business and Industry are run by evil bastards.

3) Jobs and financial support from outside are a right.

I don't know if Hantz is good or bad. But I do know that they're not being judged on their own merits. They are a proxy.

Detroit needs to change its mindset to:

1) Outsiders are sometimes the enemy -- but most outsiders really want to sincerely help,

2) Business and Industry sometimes do bad things, but mostly they are a force for improving the world.

3) Jobs and financial support go where they are loved.