This article talks about a vote on Tuesday... did they screw this up too?
This article talks about a vote on Tuesday... did they screw this up too?
They will manage to f**k it up!
1,600 contiguous parcels for 520k?
Doesn't that sound a little low, even for the East Side of Detroit? That's like $300 a parcel.
I mean, there are regular folks on DYes who could buy 2.5 contiguous square miles? That's practically what we're talking about.
And there you have it!!!!
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...-land-for-farm#
170 acres is not 2.5 square miles. I would assume that the City owned camp in Brighton or DeHoCo sales were larger.
Councilwoman Joann Watson said she was concerned that the sale at an average of 8 cents per square foot might be below market value and a violation of the city charter.
You know, at this point I'm convinced that everything, including WATCHING PAINT DRY, is a violation of the city charter.
You know what ISN'T a violation of the charter? Bankruptcy. Thank God for that.
The land will still be there a month from now. It's not that big of a deal.
As far as I am concerned any deal where you can get this property back on the tax rolls is a good deal. What kind of burden do crops and trees have on the police, fire, sanitation and school systems? Close to nill I am willing to bet. More revenue without increased costs is a good thing.
I must admit I don't know the particulars of the details. Some people think Hantz is getting a sweetheart deal. If in fact he is paying $300 a parcel and that is cheaper than normal, he is probably getting that price because he is buying bulk in a dead zone where no one would even dream of investing. I suspect the real reason why this project isn't going forward though is because he is white. The idea of a white person owning a large farm in Detroit for some reason alludes to the antebellum South to the grape throwing masses.
Seems rather ironic that we have members of the City Council, such as Pugh and Kenyatta, who can't even manage their own personal finances, making financial decisions for others. Where was the scrutiny at when some of Bobby Ferguson's contracts were on their table?
For a forum that promotes urban density you would think more people would be opposed to a farm opening up within the city. Of course the mantra is if city council opposes it, it must be good.
What would you do with it? Besides a handful of people living on that plot of land, NO ONE in decades has made a move to populate it, or do anything with it. Outside of the newly resurected "Midtown", everything in this area is going bust and belly-up. No cops, No DFD, No streetlights, where's the draw?
Ok, I see your point, and you're right. This is the problem I had with the rosy picture Mr. Vineyard was painting of plowing up land on Belle Isle. If you just leave fruit trees standing there, people will not only "take" fruit, but you're leaving it wide open to vandalization. So you're going to have to secure the area somehow. You're also going to need buildings for equipment and employees. On the flip side, Detroit is pretty cash strapped, so maybe an orchard in conjunction with some kind of learn to work program to generate revenue might NOT be such a bad idea. I even support the vineyard, I just don't want it on Belle Isle. Let Belle Isle become the nature center.
I don't care one way or the other, but I don't see this as a big deal. How much tax revenue can you really generate if in fact the land is being sold at $300 a parcel? Is a farm also going to spur development around it? It's an interesting idea and it would be neat if they created a farmers market attached to the farm and maybe some sort of restuarant using the fresh produce. I haven't seen many plans on this farm but when in doubt, blame city council.
Since you're still a relative newbie on this forum... perhaps this initiative from DYes forum member CUB [[called Georgia Street Community Garden) will show that while cars and household items get scrappers and thieves attention, gardening seems to get little or no attention among thieves....
http://georgiastreetgarden.blogspot.com/
This is just about as big of a deal as a handful of people working in a building somewhere developing software. Not a big revenue generator, but it is a start in the right direction, that's all.
My aunt lives at Warren and Chalmers and has annexed some vacant lots for her garden and ocassionally finds plants missing along with statues and even a small bench she put there. I have to imagine if you have a large scale, 170 acre farm, people will be stealing. They will need to install some sort of security. Most likely this farm will have some sort of fence and look rather ugly from the outside. Most likely peaking over the fence will be some industrial steal built barn.
You are right on all accounts, and yes there will be. But that's part of doing business. What's the difference between that and some factory stamping out parts? The necessary security fencing, or any of the proposed orchard doesn't have to look hideous, though. Look @ some of the more modern structures, the UAW Training Center for example. It's fenced, not bad looking.
No one is using that land for over 40 years. Let's put into good use. Urban farming to produce fruits and vegetables for the poor is a great ideal. It worked for Mayor Hazen Pingree when he gave potatoes and show them how to farm so that they can have more potatoes for life.
Note in the Crain's article that city council's resident genius, Joann Watson, is worried the purchaser would buy up all this property and then sit on it until it increases in value.
1) That has already happened all over the city
2) The chances of me winning the powerball are higher than this land having an increased value in the next 20 years.
2) There's this little thing called "zoning" that coul require the land to be used for agriculture so it would have no value for doing anything else.
People are saying they are likely not going to get a higher offer, but they're not likely to get a lower offer.
They want to put a tree farm ,the orchards vegetables plan was scrapped,it is kinda the city councils duty to look into the future and not base everything on what is happening in the here and now ,to do so would be saying the city will never move forward.
Is it bad as a tree farm? Well it is a common way to acquire land for future development,buy the land and plant trees or throw some cows on it and use the lower agriculture tax rate which is next to nothing harvest the trees to cover the costs until the value increases then develop it,cities and business think long term.
If one thinks the city is never going to increase and get worse to the point where there is one person living there then it would be a good deal because the city is needing the funds,but 15 years down the road and a developer says this would make a nice subdivision it will be easy to have it rezoned back because the dollar signs will be there once again.
So bottom line would be would you feel comfortable with the long term plans of selling the land now so they can profit nicely later or is it better for the city to retain the land now for future use,who is going to be the speculator the city or the private individual.
My personal thoughts are I've been hearing this "Some day, you watch..." for a good 50 years now, and I don't see much happening as far as a land rush for developing. In fact, I'll say it just keeps getting worse. [[can we please leave Gilbert and the Midtown Pop-ups out of it for the moment?) Let's say it comes to pass that people swarm back into Detroit and start throwing money @ it, and some guy somewhere does start building McMansions on this property and makes the proverbial "killing'. The McMansions are going to need water, electricity, police, DFD, etc., and are going to be paying taxes. So the City will benefit. I think this is pie-in- the-sky hopeful speculation is what's holding the City @ bay from becoming functional. Currently City services are almost non-existant or disfunctional @ best, more tax paying residents are becoming disillusioned, and you're losing more tax base. But "you watch, some day...." Maybe the council needs to wipe down that crystal ball?
Delayed. Just fucking do something you fatasses! Get SOMETHING accomplished. Stop stonewalling and delaying EVERYTHING.
"This seems like a short sale," Kenyatta said. "This city is pregnant with possibility."
Oh, really, other Kwame? And are you pregnant with parasitic worms that have eaten your pea-sized brain, asshole? You old sack of shit, in case you haven't noticed, it isn't 1940 anymore. Have you seen the eastside? You couldnt pay me to buy the eastside, and I live on the eastside. Better a short sale than just walking away - like you did with your former home in Russell Woods, asswipe.
"Activists tweeting from the council meeting were using hashtags such as #hantzoff and #landgrab."
It's Wednesday. Get a fucking job. Activist isn't a thing.
Guess what, council? Next election, I'm going to delay voting for you. Then you have to go back to being "activists", or storefront preachers, panhandlers, DPS board, or Mariner's Inn residents.
I guess I don't see the difference between a farm and vacant land
Based on what the property would sell for, the non homestead tax would be about 22,000.
That would buy 20 new garbage cans for a DPL!
The reality is that this land does exist. We are not suddenly going to have a million people moving into the City. Its best to have this being productive and producing taxes as opposed to being an eyesore. This is 170 less acres that the City would need to worry about for the time being and can then spend the time and effort trying to best improve and provide services for areas that are either now stable or on the fringe.
what kinda trees is he talking about? Xmas trees or leaf trees?
Why does the city need to worry about it? Let it turn to nature. Have some volunteers plant trees. Turn the streets into gravel streets. Apparently if someone comes along with a plan we just need to jump because they say so. I just don't see how a farm benefits anyone in the surrounding area.
That still leaves 37+ sq. miles of vacant land in the city.
Quote:
For a forum that promotes urban density you would think more people would be opposed to a farm opening up within the city.
Greenspace creates density. If you have a room 40 people in it and then block off half the room with plants, the density will increase because the 40 people will be forced into a smaller space.
Here's how a farm benefits:
- Money into the city coffers, which is in desperate need of around $10 million in the next 40 days.
- An acre of trees is nicer to look at than an acre of blight.
- Less need for fire and police support, which will allow them to focus their efforts in a more concentrated map.
I'm kind of excited for the bankruptcy judge, to be honest. If people are worried about the city "selling all of its jewels", just wait until the courts step in.
This wouldn't be greenspace that can be used by the community. It's for a farm that is looking to turn, I assume, a profit. The space is already empty pushing people to other neighborhoods. I can't imagine a fenced farm with the ungodly smell of livestock will make the area better
I stated to plant trees in the post you quoted
What services does vacant land need? Is the farm not going to need police protection that apparently vacant land needs?
If it is turned back to nature, the city still owns = no taxes and upkeep / liability costs continue.
Back to the issue at hand. I'm surprised no one on the council would say, "Okay let's sell that collection of plots, but let's auction it as awhole with the current conditions attached." Wouldn't that determine the true value? It would be a bit unfair to Hantz who did all the leg work but maybe it would stop their howling.
Or are they better to not risk getting a lower price at auction and take the $570K bird in the hand?
Looks like 3/4 of the houses are gone:
Attachment 16899
"This wouldn't be greenspace that can be used by the community."
I have a question! Won't the "community" need police protection, the "Greenspace" mowed" litter and dumped trash hauled away? I'm sorry Shollin, but this idea you have of rolling green hills in the Alps just doesn't apply to Detroit.
"I can't imagine a fenced farm with the ungodly smell of livestock will make the area better"
? I thought this was going to be an orchard or tree farm, when did it turn into animal husbandry?
I'd love to see the city get this land back on the tax rolls, but I have a question. If this land is contiguous wouldn't that include some properties not owned by the city? I know parts of the east side are quite vacant but even the most vacant blocks generally have a couple houses on it. Are we going to have another Poletown eminent domain situation here?
I don't think this City Counsel can even make a decision. Why not sell the land, Hantz said he would plant trees. OMG, trees in the City. What is the big deal? Why can't the Counsel come to a decision about anything? Let them go broke, get rid of them. At this point, they aren't doing anything. They are worthless. I used to scream at the TV - at Kay Everette, at Sheila Cockrell, at Barbara Rose, but these clowns, I just shake my head and turn on reruns of anything.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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/
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?
Attachment 16964
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"?
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
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
The area mentioned in the article includes all of Indian Village and a lot of West Village, two neighborhoods I thought were somewhat stable? A lot of the streets heading towards St Jean are vacant, but there's still a lot of houses. I just don't understand how this is going to work. Lets not ask questions though. Just sell. If the sale ends up being a mistake, we can just blame city council anyways.
"The area mentioned in the article includes all of Indian Village and a lot of West Village"
Are you sure about that? They're in the in the outlined general area, but I don't think the City can sell personal property. Not yet anyway.
"Lets not ask questions"
No, let's just keep making things up. I heard they're planning on dumping nuclear waste there! But you do have a VERY valid point. Where are our illustrious news teams with all this "In Depth" reporting? You'd think posting the exact specifics of this deal would be a priority.
It stands to reason if this law exists, Richard has answered his own question in quoting the law. It would be DTE pulling up pipes. It would stand to reason that it would also be DTE that would have the financial liability. I am however unfamiliar with this law as well. Can you cite the USC or which federal register it comes from?
Agreed.
The land will still be there a month, 6 months or eve a year from now. Once all of the finer details are worked out, then we can sell the land. This is just too big of a area to sell for pennies on the dollar to someone who we don't even know what intentions they have, especially given that this land sell will impact a lot of taxpaying Detroit citizens too.
I mean, if Mr. Hantz really believed Detroit was coming back, the first thing he would do before buying up 2.5 miles of land to plant tree is move his company and its jobs from Southfield to downtown.
Attachment 16966
sorry if this is a repost - but heres a map of the proposed area [[ green ) and another article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2159863.html
i cannot believe this is the area they are targeting. indian village, pewabic, etc. i'm sure there are “cut ins” and more detailed maps that show “safe / preserved / protected areas” somewhere. anyone have DETAILED info instead of this broad overview thats scaring people?
It would be upsetting if Council had showed strength to turn down the Miller-Canfield contract but approve the Hantz Farm project. I would say that would be a possible quid pro quo deal. I don't think that Indian Village could be razed for any developement being that it is a historical district. Dave Bing need to be recalled. He is probably in the back pockets of so many corporations and special interests groups.
It's definitely not just a big square of land. The proposed sale is checkerboard ownership of presumably all the city-owned parcels within that square. I don't know how truthful it is, or what the source was, but there was a detail map hanging in the alcove of Marcus Market [[2nd & Prentis) indicating both the outer square as well as stars on all the lots. Some areas are very contiguous, others are not.
I think there is a very strong argument to be made that the deal needs to be clear about the long-term plans: if our accepting the deal hinges on the agricultural use, that should be spelled out for longer than 5 years. If it's 5 years of agriculture and then a development, fine; but let's be clear about it.
On the other hand, Why Don't We Own This? has shown the existing process for buying and speculating on Detroit land to be opaque, biased towards the [[often out-of-town) wealthy, and usually counter to the city's immediate needs.
Ideally, a solution to this would also create a clear, coherent, and fair process for other urban farmers to buy land for expressly agricultural purposes.
I believe the Mt. Elliot location is a small farm. But the corporate office is in Southfield.
My question is this: why THIS land? As in, why not the contiguous empty plots by the airport, or by mayfield and Houston whittier? Or between 6m / 7m / John r/ i-75?
To me, it just seems strange that this massive area with that many residents [[compared to other areas of high vacancy) is the only area up for discussion. In Indian village, one large house can pay upwards of 10k a year or more in taxes, let alone all the folks dotted throughout the area in question. Which kinda makes 20k in revenue and privately absorbed demo costs look a little less convincing to some. Has anyone bothered to get a consensus from these intertwined communities, which after all, will be the ones dealing with the fallout, if ever there was one?
The jury is still out for me on this, because I believe there is way more at stake [[good and bad) than just unloading some land for some revenue. I also think this is a facinating discussion.
So Detroit is going to be the first city in the country to go back to the 19th century.
I'm generally in favor of redevelopment, and of urban industrial farming...
But I would like to see deals like this done on a more standardized basis. What is the value of a city lot? Can everyone get that value? Should it change with a bulk purchase? If sold at farming value, it is rezoned to farming?
I think this should go through, and I've very suspicious of the council's motives... which seem mostly to be to get more votes by 'opposing the man'... but there's a good argument to be made for better, or at least more broadly articulated policies on land sales by the City. It is a very obvious place where corruption could sprout along with trees.
But all that said, these things should be done in advance. Council could say, we'll go along with this one, given a statement from the Mayor that this really is fair value -- but we want a policy for any future sales. Know that now. [[None of this, oh, we just sprouted our moral wings for political grandstanding.)
The city will sell vacant property in Hubbard Farms Historical District to adjacent property owners for $200 per lot. That makes it seem like Hantz is paying maybe a little too much per lot.
I don't get your point. You say you're in favor of this and Council is grandstanding. But you also argue in favor of creating a standardized policy. I think the bigger concern here is why the mayor is trying to jam one more agreement through with very little transparency. Let's get this done right and fair the first time. There's no reason why the concerns, if valid, of the smaller urban farmers can't be addressed and incorporated into a firm policy. Yes, the city is broke and could use a half mil. But that amount would make only a small dent in the city's deficit. If the city has to wait one or two months to get this deal right, then so be it.
St. Patrick's Center in St. Louis has an urban farm as part of their program to get homeless people off the streets [[they also help get veterans and addicts). They have different types of programs to get people clean and back to work. It usually involves getting them housing and work and having them accountable to social workers.
http://www.stpatrickcenter.org/progr...ment-training/
This is the urban farm near Downtown.
http://www.stpatrickcenter.org/2012/...ds-urban-farm/
If the funding is there, Detroit could look into something like that. St. Patrick's Center gets half its funding from the government and the rest from donations. Does Detroit have charities or programs that do job training? It would cost more in the short term but might be beneficial in the long term.
I'm sorry if someone has already posted this to this discussion. Saw this on my Facebook newsfeed today: http://www.openingofdetroit.org/cont...just-any-land/