Whats the Big Deal about "Urban Farms"

[Honky Tonk]

"I imagine that most Americans have ancestors that spent a lot of time trying to get away from their agricultural roots. My Irish ancestors certainly did."

Thank God he doesn't want to put in a potato farm!

[p69rrh51]

"I imagine that most Americans have ancestors that spent a lot of time trying to get away from their agricultural roots. My Irish ancestors certainly did."

Thank God he doesn't want to put in a potato farm!

I think the trees will be just fine but looking at the area involved on a map I think there might be something more sinister a foot. What I would rather see is something similar to what the Ferry Seed Company was doing a century ago or possibly greenhouses growing non indigenous plants with high monetary value.

[Honky Tonk]

I think the trees will be just fine but looking at the area involved on a map I think there might be something more sinister a foot. What I would rather see is something similar to what the Ferry Seed Company was doing a century ago or possibly greenhouses growing non indigenous plants with high monetary value.

If you're saying what I think you're saying, that might be a welcome change too.

[Gistok]

I think the trees will be just fine but looking at the area involved on a map I think there might be something more sinister a foot. What I would rather see is something similar to what the Ferry Seed Company was doing a century ago or possibly greenhouses growing non indigenous plants with high monetary value.

I guess I'm not the only one who's been to the Leamington/Kingsville area of Ontario.....

[corktownyuppie]

One thing I've been surprised by is how cool people feel when they know they're actually being heard and listened to. That person who starts out barking at you in a confrontational tone cools down when he realizes he's being heard. Listen thoughtfully enough and you've got a conversation on your hands. Pretty soon, you might even get a chance to express how you feel. This is something I don't see a lot among a lot of the people who charge into Detroit a la "Detroit Works" with the attitude that sometimes you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette. And it shouldn't be that way.

I agree with you here, FYI.

[Richard]

Second, I'm pretty sure they are not changing the zoning to agriculture. It's the same zoning. From what I read about this agreement with the city, the only thing Hantz farms can grow on them are normal trees for lumber. They are not even allowed to grow christmas trees let alone fruit trees or any other kinds of fruit or vegetable crop. They are not even allowed to put fences up because the zoning is going to stay the same. They are just planting lumber trees which you can do on any residential lot in the city.

Because planting normal trees you would see in a park does not need a zone change and tax auctions don't affect neighboring property values, your legal precedents don't apply. In fact, I remember reading somewhere that Hantz farms was saying property values would increase in value because it would be a lot like living next to a wooded park. If you had a house next to woods on Belle Isle or Palmer Woods, I'm sure it would be a lot more desirable and worth more a lot more than owning a house surrounded by blight and garbage.

Not to be confrontational But I do not see it.

What you are saying is that they are giving a commercial enterprise free rein to enter a residential zoning and set up shop,It is one thing if I as an individual buys a lot and plants trees ,totally different if it is done on a commercial aspect,I would doubt very highly.

#1 Hantz Farms would acquire those lots and pay regular residential tax rates unless they are growing cannabis there is no way the amount of trees would pay the taxes alone unless they need a serious write off.I think they need the arig zoning with a special exception specifying trees only.
Then when it comes time to build they would then have to go back to rezoning.But at that time sense services have been eliminated who will cover the costs of running utilities again the taxpayer?

#2 Without the rezoning then the door is opened for anybody to place a commercial endeavor in the midst of residential without having to be rezoned which would then throw any neighborhoods chance of having a say of what happens,if they could just go plant trees with no issues they would and this would not be an issue nobody would even be aware of it.

Yes it has been sitting there for many years and nobody wants it anyways,well somebody wants it.

That somebody is probably looking at the future and not the here and now and in the past,next year you will elect a mayor and city council that can work together,you have a city charter that is kicking in that will give boots on the ground neighborhood representation,something that has not happened in the last 43 years,its hard to see now but when those things kick in and full swing in the next couple of years Detroit is going to skyrocket.

If the neighborhood was properly represented there would be no issues with lot maintenance and values.

Like I posted earlier it is either the city speculating or Hantz Farms it does not really matter,what matters is looking beyond today and not making the same mistakes as yesterday and of the last 43 years.That is progress and you cannot base anything on it has been like that for years and nobody wants it anyways,if that is the case then hell I will give you $5 for Packard ,its abandoned decrepit and nobody wants it right?

[drpoundsign]

In New York BedStuy has come back [[somewhat). Harlem is half-gentrified and the South Bronx is full of gut-renovated apartments. OK THAT is high density stuff. The D got FUBAR ironically because it is almost a semi-surburban city of stand alone homes. The economy and education need to improve there. Also, it was arrogant to Not build a subway and elevated line system a century ago. The City of the Car is a Doomed Model

[davewindsor]

Not to be confrontational But I do not see it.

What you are saying is that they are giving a commercial enterprise free rein to enter a residential zoning and set up shop,It is one thing if I as an individual buys a lot and plants trees ,totally different if it is done on a commercial aspect,I would doubt very highly.

#1 Hantz Farms would acquire those lots and pay regular residential tax rates unless they are growing cannabis there is no way the amount of trees would pay the taxes alone unless they need a serious write off.I think they need the arig zoning with a special exception specifying trees only.
Then when it comes time to build they would then have to go back to rezoning.But at that time sense services have been eliminated who will cover the costs of running utilities again the taxpayer?

#2 Without the rezoning then the door is opened for anybody to place a commercial endeavor in the midst of residential without having to be rezoned which would then throw any neighborhoods chance of having a say of what happens,if they could just go plant trees with no issues they would and this would not be an issue nobody would even be aware of it.

Yes it has been sitting there for many years and nobody wants it anyways,well somebody wants it.

That somebody is probably looking at the future and not the here and now and in the past,next year you will elect a mayor and city council that can work together,you have a city charter that is kicking in that will give boots on the ground neighborhood representation,something that has not happened in the last 43 years,its hard to see now but when those things kick in and full swing in the next couple of years Detroit is going to skyrocket.

If the neighborhood was properly represented there would be no issues with lot maintenance and values.

Like I posted earlier it is either the city speculating or Hantz Farms it does not really matter,what matters is looking beyond today and not making the same mistakes as yesterday and of the last 43 years.That is progress and you cannot base anything on it has been like that for years and nobody wants it anyways,if that is the case then hell I will give you $5 for Packard ,its abandoned decrepit and nobody wants it right?

It's not a zoning change from residential to rural. Read http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2170178.html
",,, the businessman is seeking to transform the area into a mixed hardwoods timber farm, pending the approval of a new city urban agriculture ordinance."

"A new city urban agriculture ordinance" would apply to every residential land owner in the city. http://professionalgardening.com/new...mmunity-review

You're not removing the residential zoning nor is he asking for agricultural zoning.

The services were already moved back to the mainline along the street to code when the structure was demolished to make it a vacant lot to begin with. The mainlines still service the houses at the other end of the block. And if it had to be removed [[which makes absolutely no sense) the costs would be born by the service provider like DTE energy not the taxpayer.

If residential taxes doesn't make sense for lumber planting, which you haven't proven with numbers yet, the game of speculating is losing money in short term on the belief of reaping huge rewards in the long term so it doesn't matter anyway.

Criticisms #1 and #2 are irrelevant because they would be addressed by the "new city urban agriculture ordinance"

The looking beyond part is nonsense. The city is bankrupt. The land only becomes worth more when investors start investing. If the area remains a landfill with urban blight, it doesn't automatically become worth more in the future. You have to get guys like Hantz Farms cleaning an area up first before you'll ever be able to reach that point because the city can't afford to do it and there are no better offers on the table.

I'll support you buying the Packard for $5 if you can provide proof of funds in the amount of $100m to rehab it any day of the week.

[Richard]

[QUOTE]

You're not removing the residential zoning nor is he asking for agricultural zoning.

The arig zoning is a tool in the cities box to move the lots there and elsewhere,its a technicality to make it more economically desirable.

The services were already moved back to the mainline along the street to code when the structure was demolished to make it a vacant lot to begin with. The mainlines still service the houses at the other end of the block. And if it had to be removed [[which makes absolutely no sense) the costs would be born by the service provider like DTE energy not the taxpayer.

And DTE would not pass the costs on to the taxpayer? They just received approval to sur charge the consumer for the costs of converting to smart meters.Power companies have a habit of recouping their costs.Which is why they are good for stock investments.

If residential taxes doesn't make sense for lumber planting, which you haven't proven with numbers yet, the game of speculating is losing money in short term on the belief of reaping huge rewards in the long term so it doesn't matter anyway.

The neighbors have been asking the city for use of the adjoining vacant lots for years ,it has been the city that has created the currant situation,they should have had a system in place that makes it economical to do this already not only for Hantz but for the residents also ,how do they justify charging full tax rates on a vacant lot that really requires no services.If tax rates were not the issue Hantz or the neighbors could have acquired the lots long ago and had no problem,it is the holding costs.Only now are they offering the lots at a reasonable price to the neighbors.

Criticisms #1 and #2 are irrelevant because they would be addressed by the "new city urban agriculture ordinance"

It is a discussion criticisms do not apply nor are intended.

The looking beyond part is nonsense. The city is bankrupt. The land only becomes worth more when investors start investing. If the area remains a landfill with urban blight, it doesn't automatically become worth more in the future. You have to get guys like Hantz Farms cleaning an area up first before you'll ever be able to reach that point because the city can't afford to do it and there are no better offers on the table.

If the lots have been vacant for as many years as some have posted the looking beyond aspect is most definitely not nonsense if one looked beyond 30 years ago this would be a non issue and the whole point is to start looking beyond.There were offers on the table by the currant residents the city made it feasible not to happen so to say once again it is an unknown that it sat all of these years because nobody wanted it,more so maybe nobody wanted to get rid of it bad enough.

I'll support you buying the Packard for $5 if you can provide proof of funds in the amount of $100m to rehab it any day of the week.

Wow,are we doing a hedge fund scam with it?Maybe suck some pension fund dry and walk away? Where are you getting those numbers ? and saying that is a reflection on why investors are not so quick to join up ,The city hall attitude of we wipe with gold plated toilet paper and if you want to invest in our city you have to prove that you are worthy of being welcomed into our dictatorship.It is not 1950 anymore and it is a big welcoming world out there.Can the city at the very least prove that they have an confident government in place before making left field demands on investors or potential investors?Everything else that they use as an excuse saying it drives investors away is Mott and workarounds.It took two years just for some to put a simple food truck on the road.

$100m ? This is what we did with $100m including an additional 350 homes and two lakes with lakefront housing starting at $750k and an entire 1/4 mile of commercial on the main road.Or maybe you were including rebuilding the entire 1 mile area that surrounds the plant if so I digress.Packard as a stand alone does not even come close to $100m.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splendi..._%28Florida%29

But it is all good and well, I have a lot of faith that by next years elections a new Detroit will emerge and all of this will be history and non issue.

It is a discussion with opinions not a criticism and what is it with this big push of urban gardening anyways.I guess it has its advantages and disadvantages depending on where you sit on the tractor.

[oladub]

What kind of trees will be grown in the tree farm? Forestry is a less labor intensive and lower form of land use than agriculture. It will take probably 15 years to get a crop off of even fast growing pulp. Meanwhile the streets and sewers under them are rotting. Basically, a tree farm is a job free zone until harvest. How is this area going to be policed or will this be a 'no go' zone? Imagine the security problems the few remaining homes in these neighborhoods will have.

My preference would be to have Detroit sell large swaths to developers to build large self contained walled communities of up to 50,000 residents with their own private schools, stores, and community amenities to provide jobs and a taxation base for the rest of Detroit.

[Richard]

What kind of trees will be grown in the tree farm? Forestry is a less labor intensive and lower form of land use than agriculture. It will take probably 15 years to get a crop off of even fast growing pulp. Meanwhile the streets and sewers under them are rotting. Basically, a tree farm is a job free zone until harvest. How is this area going to be policed or will this be a 'no go' zone? Imagine the security problems the few remaining homes in these neighborhoods will have.

My preference would be to have Detroit sell large swaths to developers to build large self contained walled communities of up to 50,000 residents with their own private schools, stores, and community amenities to provide jobs and a taxation base for the rest of Detroit.

They have mentioned hardwood trees ,I did a little research and black walnut seems the most profitable out of them all but still at 35 years to maturity.

[Lowell]

Imagine the security problems the few remaining homes in these neighborhoods will have.

Those homes are already in that situation except the the surroundings are overgrown weed lots and tire dumps. A maintained tree farm has to be a great improvement and will probably increase the value and security of their property.

My preference would be to have Detroit sell large swaths to developers to build large self contained walled communities of up to 50,000 residents with their own private schools, stores, and community amenities to provide jobs and a taxation base for the rest of Detroit.

We tried that all ready. They're called suburbs. They draw away the cream of the tax-paying populations and leave all the problems with Detroit and the older ciites.

[oladub]

Lowell: Those homes are already in that situation except the the surroundings are overgrown weed lots and tire dumps. A maintained tree farm has to be a great improvement and will probably increase the value and security of their property.

I was thinking about the ability to lurk in a forest as opposed to being spotted on a more open field as well as the mechanics of finding and pursuing bad guys. The contract better specify who has to maintain these areas to keep them free of tires and other litter. If they could be maintained and crime didn't get worse, then, yes, the remaining houses might go up in value because of a better ambiance.

We tried that all ready. They're called suburbs. They draw away the cream of the tax-paying populations and leave all the problems with Detroit and the older cities

I'm suggesting luring some of the people who have no choice but suburbs into Detroit and onto Detroit tax rolls. Since richer people probably wouldn't want to send their kids to Detroit public schools [[consider that even the Obamas send their kids to private schools), they would pay for both Detroit Public Schools through their taxes while not using them and their own Montessori type schools. A better analogy would be people who locate in upscale apartments along the Detroit River. They want to live in the City instead of the suburbs. Every apartment or condo building is already a gated community with keys, exclusive laundries, indoor parking lots, exercise rooms, and maybe with pools and private security. I am only suggesting the expansion of large condo communities which would benefit the balance of Detroit residents. When the crime comes down, then the gates can come down and maybe residents of such communities will start sending their kides to DPS schools. Growing a bunch of trees, however, is probably a scheme to buy land cheap and hold it without paying residential taxes until something like my idea is more viable.

I would also offer Detroit school and government employees retirement options involving city land instead of so much pension money that City taxpayers can't afford. The options could go toward share ownership in such planned communities.

[davewindsor]

The arig zoning is a tool in the cities box to move the lots there and elsewhere,its a technicality to make it more economically desirable.

[/QUOTE]

Agricultural zoning is a tool.... Nonsense. Hantz Farms is talking about an ordinance. Their model doesn't need agricultural zoning to be economically desirable to them.

[QUOTE=Richard;353452]

And DTE would not pass the costs on to the taxpayer? They just received approval to sur charge the consumer for the costs of converting to smart meters.Power companies have a habit of recouping their costs.Which is why they are good for stock investments.

Apples and oranges. Smart meters is something completely different. The costs of the smart meters are directly born by the people who are getting a benefit from the smart meters and there's even some debate that smart meters can actually directly save those consumers who are paying the surcharge if they divert power usage to off hours, ex., cooking that large pot roast on an electric stove during off hours and during peak hours just heating the leftovers in the microwave, using washers/electric dryers off hours, using dishwashers during off hours, etc.

A monopoly such as DTE Energy would have state regulatory constraints preventing the costs of delivery spread indirectly across the board to all taxpayers because a small percentage of clients needed utility lines removed. Those costs would be born out of the shareholders dividends if there wasn't a reserve fund for it, not the taxpayer.



[QUOTE=Richard;353452]

The neighbors have been asking the city for use of the adjoining vacant lots for years ,it has been the city that has created the currant situation,they should have had a system in place that makes it economical to do this already not only for Hantz but for the residents also ,how do they justify charging full tax rates on a vacant lot that really requires no services.If tax rates were not the issue Hantz or the neighbors could have acquired the lots long ago and had no problem,it is the holding costs.Only now are they offering the lots at a reasonable price to the neighbors.
If the lots have been vacant for as many years as some have posted the looking beyond aspect is most definitely not nonsense if one looked beyond 30 years ago this would be a non issue and the whole point is to start looking beyond.There were offers on the table by the currant residents the city made it feasible not to happen so to say once again it is an unknown that it sat all of these years because nobody wanted it,more so maybe nobody wanted to get rid of it bad enough.

What the city should have done is irrelevant because values change over time. Also, we don't have a time machine to undo the past. Even if we did have a time machine, those values would have been different decades ago and this kind of offer would have been a non-starter if presented a decade ago. All we can do is put the present in the right motion for the future. It only gets put in the right motion if this deal is made. If it doesn't get made, then the garbage remains on these lots and the neighborhood doesn't improve to ever see that added future value.

Also, Hantz wouldn't have acquired it years ago because it's a fairly new proposal to their organization. They also had to run a test pilot project on a smaller scale in the city to determine if the holding costs [[risk) was worth the long term reward before advancing to a larger scale. They determined it was and made a calculated offer based on what they thought that risk was worth.

Also there were no other projects on the table on a similar scale to compete with this offer. If there were, who? And why haven't they presented themselves now? In addition, letting small land owners do it doesn't apply to this argument because they are not taking everything as a package deal. If they take the best lots of the deal, those lots are worth a lot more and the price should be a lot higher. I don't think you grasp that point as I've said it before. A parcel with a fire bombed house or a mountain of tires on it is worth a lot less than a parcel with just weeds growing on it. Those kinds of lots would normally have a negative value because of the costs of cleanup involved. Location of the parcel also has a bearing on its price. Hantz is bundling the crap with the good and making an offer [[which includes a two year cleanup reverter clause.ie., the city can rescind the deal if they fail to perform) as a package deal.


[QUOTE=Richard;353452]

Wow,are we doing a hedge fund scam with it?Maybe suck some pension fund dry and walk away? Where are you getting those numbers ? and saying that is a reflection on why investors are not so quick to join up ,The city hall attitude of we wipe with gold plated toilet paper and if you want to invest in our city you have to prove that you are worthy of being welcomed into our dictatorship.It is not 1950 anymore and it is a big welcoming world out there.Can the city at the very least prove that they have an confident government in place before making left field demands on investors or potential investors?Everything else that they use as an excuse saying it drives investors away is Mott and workarounds.It took two years just for some to put a simple food truck on the road.

$100m ? This is what we did with $100m including an additional 350 homes and two lakes with lakefront housing starting at $750k and an entire 1/4 mile of commercial on the main road.Or maybe you were including rebuilding the entire 1 mile area that surrounds the plant if so I digress.Packard as a stand alone does not even come close to $100m.

How does construction translate to hedge funds???

Actually, $100m is quite conservative. A 3.5m sq. ft building divided by $100m is $28.57 a square foot. New construction costs of a single story warehouse is at least $31.97 a sq. ft. http://www.dcd.com/guides/1107guide.html plus you have to add the costs of multi floors and elevators and there's so much damage to it from scrappers and the elements that you might as well be building new.

The Book Cadillac cost $200m to rehab. There would be huge numbers dropped on a Packard rehab as well.

[Richard]

Agricultural zoning is a tool.... Nonsense. Hantz Farms is talking about an ordinance. Their model doesn't need agricultural zoning to be economically desirable to them.

If you change an ordnance from residential to commercial you are also changing the tax structure that follows,commercial tax rates are not the same as residential.

Apples and oranges. Smart meters is something completely different.
A monopoly such as DTE Energy would have state regulatory constraints preventing the costs of delivery spread indirectly across the board to all taxpayers because a small percentage of clients needed utility lines removed. Those costs would be born out of the shareholders dividends if there wasn't a reserve fund for it, not the taxpayer.

The smart meter example was as an example of how utility companies divert costs to the end user which they do,you never have seen a fuel sur-charge on your bill? or do the shareholders also absorb those costs also.

What the city should have done is irrelevant because values change over time. Also, we don't have a time machine to undo the past. Even if we did have a time machine, those values would have been different decades ago and this kind of offer would have been a non-starter if presented a decade ago. All we can do is put the present in the right motion for the future. It only gets put in the right motion if this deal is made. If it doesn't get made, then the garbage remains on these lots and the neighborhood doesn't improve to ever see that added future value.

So it is not the city's job to prepare for the future?or is it their job to solely react to currant events.Proactive or reactive.

Also there were no other projects on the table on a similar scale to compete with this offer. If there were, who? And why haven't they presented themselves now? In addition, letting small land owners do it doesn't apply to this argument because they are not taking everything as a package deal. If they take the best lots of the deal, those lots are worth a lot more and the price should be a lot higher. I don't think you grasp that point as I've said it before. A parcel with a fire bombed house or a mountain of tires on it is worth a lot less than a parcel with just weeds growing on it. Those kinds of lots would normally have a negative value because of the costs of cleanup involved. Location of the parcel also has a bearing on its price. Hantz is bundling the crap with the good and making an offer [[which includes a two year cleanup reverter clause.ie., the city can rescind the deal if they fail to perform) as a package deal.

It has taken Hantz 4 years of dealing with the city up to this point the average small investor or resident does not have the backing to carry those costs for that amount of time.Once again,the residents have been fighting for the last two years for this,they did step up to the plate with offers but were rejected up until now, Why?

How does construction translate to hedge funds???

It is easier to get $200 million in funding then it is $10 million because the people with the funds look for larger returns,if you have $50 million you do not go buy a house to flip you buy large for large returns,big money gives big returns so projects are based on big money that can absorb the loss if necessary or absorb the carrying costs long term without going bankrupt,hedge funds and pension plans etc. they do not invest in house flipping,well usually,they did in Detroit and got screwed.

Actually, $100m is quite conservative. A 3.5m sq. ft building divided by $100m is $28.57 a square foot. New construction costs of a single story warehouse is at least $31.97 a sq. ft.

http://www.dcd.com/guides/1107guide.html plus you have to add the costs of multi floors and elevators and there's so much damage to it from scrappers and the elements that you might as well be building new.

Beside the point,but there is a difference from pulling numbers from the average or actually pulling numbers from each individual building as that is where the variables are.

You are basing your $100 mil numbers on a 3.5 million sqft building Packard. Which granted as built was that amount,but when you take into consideration the city demolished 500,000 sqft in their first takeover attempt now you are down to 3 million sqft and to make a long story short there is actually roughly 2.2 million sqft left that would be economically feasible to rehab.

The Book Cadillac cost $200m to rehab. There would be huge numbers dropped on a Packard rehab as well.

This is where your apples and oranges come into play,there is still 1 million sqft of useable space within Packard where say for instance a 300 pound ingot of aluminum could care less about things like air conditioning,nice comfy beds or even if the walls are painted .

If you were rehabbing Packard as a Book Cadillac then yes it probably would be not feasible and you could use that as an example but when you are looking at wide open spaces for production and warehousing then it becomes a totally different ball game,sorry,I have 2 years of running numbers on Packard I believe that I have a little knowledge of what it would take on that part at least.

But in the end I guess that is the whole point of all of this ,basing decisions on looking at something and making a decision based on what we see as now and not what it could be after a little thought is placed,it does not matter if it is a building or a vacant lot there are always options.

Hudsons ,yea it is vacant and derelict and nobody is ever going to do anything with it anyways so lets tear it down,never any thought on hey lets figure out a way to make this productive,it is just easier to collect tax money and then when it gets to that point more tax money to resolve or pacify the immediate problem.

There is no reason in the world that Hantz or the neighbors should have gone through all of this nightmare,they can co-exist,but the city is creating negative situations and then countering it with another negative situation by pitting the residents against each other and business,in theory the city could have addressed this two years ago with the residents and it would not even be an issiue and the vacant trashed out lots would not even be a factor.

Urban farming is the latest fad and now as shown it is maybe a way to cover ground in a productive way until the land changes to highest and best use,but they need not only to look at the vacant lot today but how to deal with what is coming up next in the future so they are not repeating today.Kinda like a future growth plan,interesting concept.

[davewindsor]

If you change an ordnance from residential to commercial you are also changing the tax structure that follows,commercial tax rates are not the same as residential.

You're making things up. Show me where it says in the ordinance proposal that the tax rates will change. They are are adding uses to the currently allowed uses on existing property not changing the uses that are allowed on the property.

The smart meter example was as an example of how utility companies divert costs to the end user which they do,you never have seen a fuel sur-charge on your bill? or do the shareholders also absorb those costs also.

Again, irrelevant analogy. A fuel surcharge is a direct charge to that user. You're talking about costs spread indirectly to clients not using that service, i.e., the "taxpayer" paying for someone else's utility lines to be reconfigured, not the utility line that goes from the utility plant directly to you.

So it is not the city's job to prepare for the future?or is it their job to solely react to currant events.Proactive or reactive.

They are preparing for the future by discussing a new ordinance.

It has taken Hantz 4 years of dealing with the city up to this point the average small investor or resident does not have the backing to carry those costs for that amount of time.Once again,the residents have been fighting for the last two years for this,they did step up to the plate with offers but were rejected up until now, Why?

Because their offers were not reasonable and those that did step up represent a small fraction of Hantz' total land purchase. You can't take the per lot average of Hantz' offer and let the best lots go for that price and be stuck with the worst ones. It makes no business sense to do that. The best parcels rightly should sell for more than that average price. The worst parcels should sell for less or at a loss to the city when cleanup is factored in. Hantz also has a proven track record and can show a proof of funds that they can carry out their task as opposed to slumlord speculators holding onto it to the detriment of everyone else living in that neighborhood. Do you think those small investors would agree to provide a proof of funds and two-year reverter clauses to motivate them to maintain a clean property? Doubt it. But guess what, the city is being very generous giving them the chance to buy neighboring lots for less than Hantz, so the point is moot.

It is easier to get $200 million in funding then it is $10 million because the people with the funds look for larger returns,if you have $50 million you do not go buy a house to flip you buy large for large returns,big money gives big returns so projects are based on big money that can absorb the loss if necessary or absorb the carrying costs long term without going bankrupt,hedge funds and pension plans etc. they do not invest in house flipping,well usually,they did in Detroit and got screwed.

Really? Thanks for the finance lesson. If it's that easy to raise $200m, why aren't you doing it? What projects have you raised $200m for? What's your track record since you understand how easy it is to raise that kind of money? Or are you just making things up again?

Beside the point,but there is a difference from pulling numbers from the average or actually pulling numbers from each individual building as that is where the variables are.

You are basing your $100 mil numbers on a 3.5 million sqft building Packard. Which granted as built was that amount,but when you take into consideration the city demolished 500,000 sqft in their first takeover attempt now you are down to 3 million sqft and to make a long story short there is actually roughly 2.2 million sqft left that would be economically feasible to rehab.




This is where your apples and oranges come into play,there is still 1 million sqft of useable space within Packard where say for instance a 300 pound ingot of aluminum could care less about things like air conditioning,nice comfy beds or even if the walls are painted .

If you were rehabbing Packard as a Book Cadillac then yes it probably would be not feasible and you could use that as an example but when you are looking at wide open spaces for production and warehousing then it becomes a totally different ball game,sorry,I have 2 years of running numbers on Packard I believe that I have a little knowledge of what it would take on that part at least.

But in the end I guess that is the whole point of all of this ,basing decisions on looking at something and making a decision based on what we see as now and not what it could be after a little thought is placed,it does not matter if it is a building or a vacant lot there are always options.

Hudsons ,yea it is vacant and derelict and nobody is ever going to do anything with it anyways so lets tear it down,never any thought on hey lets figure out a way to make this productive,it is just easier to collect tax money and then when it gets to that point more tax money to resolve or pacify the immediate problem.

Well, show me your numbers. You were the first to compare $100m to the cost of building houses in a luxury neighbourhood and a block of commercial buildings, etc. $100m can buy a lot of things and fund a lot of smaller projects, but I still believe that's what it would cost and it's still very conservative when you factor in things like environmental cleanup from lead paint, asbestos and whatever chemical cleaners and lubricants seeped into the ground. I also doubt those upper floors could hold the weight of those aluminum ingots with all the cracks and rust that's accumlated on the rebars inside the concrete and supporting beams. It's going to take some serious money to make it structurally sound again.

There is no reason in the world that Hantz or the neighbors should have gone through all of this nightmare,they can co-exist,but the city is creating negative situations and then countering it with another negative situation by pitting the residents against each other and business,in theory the city could have addressed this two years ago with the residents and it would not even be an issiue and the vacant trashed out lots would not even be a factor.

Urban farming is the latest fad and now as shown it is maybe a way to cover ground in a productive way until the land changes to highest and best use,but they need not only to look at the vacant lot today but how to deal with what is coming up next in the future so they are not repeating today.Kinda like a future growth plan,interesting concept.

The garbage has been there a lot longer than two years and are the residents really being pitted against Hantz farms or are you making it up? There are interviews on their website of a lot of neighboring residents showing support for what Hantz has been doing. The president of the company even lives in the area.

Again, it's hard to consider future alternatives when there are none. You have to take the best deal that's available at present. And I believe they are considering the future when they look for alternatives to the traditional no holds barred tax auction and adding things like two year reverter clauses on ab alternate offer than the traditional tax auction so these parcels don't continue to look like slum central to neighboring residents.

[Hypestyles]

I wonder what the status is, if any-- for the Michigan State proposed project on abandoned land to convert into a research project..

[JVB]

I wonder what the status is, if any-- for the Michigan State proposed project on abandoned land to convert into a research project..

Wondering this too. MSU proposed a $100 million investment over 10 years and City Council rebuffed them IIRC.

[Richard]

You're making things up. Show me where it says in the ordinance proposal that the tax rates will change. They are are adding uses to the currently allowed uses on existing property not changing the uses that are allowed on the property.

Seems like the tax rate on a dead piece of property is the largest deterrent as you stated earlier that anybody can go plant a trees on a piece of property why would they need a zoning variance to plant trees?

Because their offers were not reasonable and those that did step up represent a small fraction of Hantz' total land purchase. You can't take the per lot average of Hantz' offer and let the best lots go for that price and be stuck with the worst ones. It makes no business sense to do that. The best parcels rightly should sell for more than that average price. The worst parcels should sell for less or at a loss to the city when cleanup is factored in. Hantz also has a proven track record and can show a proof of funds that they can carry out their task as opposed to slumlord speculators holding onto it to the detriment of everyone else living in that neighborhood. Do you think those small investors would agree to provide a proof of funds and two-year reverter clauses to motivate them to maintain a clean property? Doubt it.

But guess what, the city is being very generous giving them the chance to buy neighboring lots for less than Hantz, so the point is moot.

I guess the residents are there for the convenience of the city,those three lines says it all.I guess in your eyes the residents should stfu and be happy and grateful with what the city allows them to do, Hugh? Detroit is still in America the last time I checked anyways.

You are a city with tens of thousands of vacant trashed out lots you have already made it clear on the downsizing aspect,so in the meantime you are covering the costs of these lots and they attribute to the overall look of the city.

You have a resident who is living next door to one of these lots,they have already clearly shown by just being there that they have a vested interest in the neighborhood,what does it matter if you sold them the lot for a dollar,it is off of your books,somebody that cares about the neighborhood is now in control and it is in their best interest to clean it up and if not you have local code enforcement that can help and not have to worry about going after some speculator in another city or country.

The consensuses is nobody is going to do anything with them anyways right and they have no value so costs are moot other then the taxes,here is a new caddy but the gas tank is welded shut ,you cannot do anything with it but it sure looks nice.

Really? Thanks for the finance lesson. If it's that easy to raise $200m, why aren't you doing it? What projects have you raised $200m for? What's your track record since you understand how easy it is to raise that kind of money? Or are you just making things up again?

A couple more cups of coffee, Why would I need to raise $200 million based on an example that was provided to you?

I have not had the need to raise $200 mill for any project the project that we raised capital for was in the link that I provided for you and used as an example when you pulled some out of this world number of $100 mil for Packard ,based on what?

I prefer private money anyways verses wall street where you inflate numbers and employees are just tool to create more numbers.

Well, show me your numbers. You were the first to compare $100m to the cost of building houses in a luxury neighbourhood and a block of commercial buildings, etc. $100m can buy a lot of things and fund a lot of smaller projects, but I still believe that's what it would cost and it's still very conservative when you factor in things like environmental cleanup from lead paint, asbestos and whatever chemical cleaners and lubricants seeped into the ground. I also doubt those upper floors could hold the weight of those aluminum ingots with all the cracks and rust that's accumlated on the rebars inside the concrete and supporting beams. It's going to take some serious money to make it structurally sound again.

Show you my numbers? that is rich,they did not fall out of the sky it cost me two years of time and over $100k out of pocket but if you want to take it from here fine 100k and you can have everything and I will write the two years off.No checks certified funds only please.

You "doubt" that that the floors would hold the weight but when there are peoples lives at stake you cannot base anything on doubt it has to be on tested fact.

[internet_pseudopod]

They have mentioned hardwood trees ,I did a little research and black walnut seems the most profitable out of them all but still at 35 years to maturity.

Here is another candidate. Apparently these trees grow almost as fast as tree of heaven but with harder wood and a better smell. Detroit really straddles the line where these trees will grow but if Hantz is serious he has to be thinking of something like this tree.

[davewindsor]

Seems like the tax rate on a dead piece of property is the largest deterrent as you stated earlier that anybody can go plant a trees on a piece of property why would they need a zoning variance to plant trees?

Not to Hantz Farms. What do you think the tax bill is on a vacant parcel in this city? It's one thing if it has a building on it. I've seen boarded up 30 storey brick apartment buildings where their yearly tax bill was $600 a year. So what do you the tax bill is going to be for a parcel with no buildings?

Hantz Farms needs the variance as someone pointed out concern over a scenario that Palmer Park Orchards experienced earlier this year were 800 newly planted trees donated by the People for Palmer Park were removed by the city. Hantz doesn't want the same thing happening here because it wasn't addressed in the zoning.

You have a resident who is living next door to one of these lots,they have already clearly shown by just being there that they have a vested interest in the neighborhood,what does it matter if you sold them the lot for a dollar,it is off of your books,somebody that cares about the neighborhood is now in control and it is in their best interest to clean it up and if not you have local code enforcement that can help and not have to worry about going after some speculator in another city or country.

The consensuses is nobody is going to do anything with them anyways right and they have no value so costs are moot other then the taxes,here is a new caddy but the gas tank is welded shut ,you cannot do anything with it but it sure looks nice.

Yes, this analysis is consistent with my position.

If the new caddy's gas tank is welded shut, Hantz farms has the money to pay a mechanic to replace the tank with a functional one. All the more reason Hantz should get it--as they've provided proof of funds to do what they say. They've already provided plenty of evidence that they are going to clean it up and not just sit in on it and do nothing with it like Moroun or Kelly. Plus there's a two-year reverter clause negotiated by the city, so it'll be cleaned up.

A couple more cups of coffee, Why would I need to raise $200 million based on an example that was provided to you?

I have not had the need to raise $200 mill for any project the project that we raised capital for was in the link that I provided for you and used as an example when you pulled some out of this world number of $100 mil for Packard ,based on what?

What link?? The only link I saw from you was from the Splendid China Theme Park that went bankrupt. Are you a representative of the People's Republic of China?

Show you my numbers? that is rich,they did not fall out of the sky it cost me two years of time and over $100k out of pocket but if you want to take it from here fine 100k and you can have everything and I will write the two years off.No checks certified funds only please.

You "doubt" that that the floors would hold the weight but when there are peoples lives at stake you cannot base anything on doubt it has to be on tested fact.

Why on earth would I pay you $100K for a report on a worthless building. That's madness. If the building is worthless, the report is worthless. If you think it's not worthless, the burden is on you to present proof that it has value. Maybe you can use the report as a door stop.

[Al Publican]

I think of Detroit's eastside between Conner and E. Grand Bullyard as "the savanna." If not farming, why not some grazing on "the savanna"?