Quote:
[There are two issues, economic and social.]
Operating under the premise that this will be trees or ag only: Economically, I have not seen a compelling argument for why the Hantz project needs to be located where proposed instead of somewhere else with less development potential. The best one I can think of is proximity to his resources, but a Gratiot-area location is about equidistant to Hantz' Mt Elliot HQ. Re time-value of these plots, we agree that it's low in each instance [[proposed or alternative locations), but I believe [[hope) that we can agree that, whatever it may be, the multiple is greater in the proposed area than it would be in the two alternatives I suggested, or most other alternatives for that matter. No need for the city to give that up that increment/margin, however small, when Hantz' can accomplish any econ goals equally in those other places. Alternatively, if you remove the premise that it's just for trees/ag only, then it is a nearly-nekkid land grab and a whole different analysis applies, particularly politically.
Onto the social aspect as a second, distinct issue. I think it's great he wants to clean that area up. I also think he can clean it up and plant trees without obtaining title to the land. There are lots of programs that get approvals and do that sort of thing, and with his connections and money I believe that is something that he could achieve quite easily and at a lower cost than would be required than under a scenario in which he purchases the land.
All that said, reasonable minds can obviously disagree. And while I often criticize the Council for being obstructionist, I would not be approving the project *as proposed* were I a Councilperson.
Either way, would make a good barstool debate sometime.