Whats the Big Deal about "Urban Farms"

I personally dont understand why so many people are swearing by "urban Farming" as a savior to Detroit. MI has enough farm land. Why should a City sell off acres on top of acres of land for a tree farm when theirs plenty of open available space in the burbs and rural areas where that kind of stuff belongs. This is a City not a F'n rual area. I can understand some small farming on Belle Isle, rouge etc. But turning neighborhoods into farms is Total B.S. The company talking about buying 1500 parcels for 560k is beyond rediculous. they not gone do nothing but sit on it and wait untill a developer wants it and sell it for millions. We are not sharecroppers anymore. WTF. Somebody help me.

I don't get it either, but I think the argument is a farm is better than nothing. I would rather just have the land return back to nature.

Who is swearing by urban farming as a savior for Detroit? I haven't heard anyone make that claim.

313Hero wrote:
"We are not sharecroppers anymore," as an argument against the Hantz Woodlands proposal.

I would be grateful if he would expound more on that sentence, because I think that simple statement is the crux of the opposition.

He can't be worrying that Hantz properties will be worth millions in the near or distant future. They are pretty spread out and in parcels that wouldn't be easily assembled into a huge campus such as 313Hero seems to be worried about, so the sharecropping reference is the key reference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313hero

I personally dont understand why so many people are swearing by "urban Farming" as a savior to Detroit. MI has enough farm land. Why should a City sell off acres on top of acres of land for a tree farm when theirs plenty of open available space in the burbs and rural areas where that kind of stuff belongs. This is a City not a F'n rual area. I can understand some small farming on Belle Isle, rouge etc. But turning neighborhoods into farms is Total B.S. The company talking about buying 1500 parcels for 560k is beyond rediculous. they not gone do nothing but sit on it and wait untill a developer wants it and sell it for millions. We are not sharecroppers anymore. WTF. Somebody help me.

---

I support urban farming, but I'm not a real big cheerleader of it. What I like about it is ownership of land promotes development. As it sits now those parcels are next to worthless and the city collects zero taxes on it - tax money it needs. However, if an urban farm goes in and people start to move back into the area and property values do begin to go back up, then it can always be sold to a developer for a new project. Valuable land will never remain farmland, and worthless land will never be developed, so this is an attempt to bridge that gap. As they stand now, single residential lots on the eastside will never be worth anything so I think it's part of the natural progression of a Detroit turn around.

What I don't like about it is the tax rate on agricultural land is lower from what I've read. That sucks, but some tax is better than no tax. I also don't like the idea of any type of livestock farming which I would never support in the city, but I don't think that's part of the proposals anyways and the city has regulations to prevent that.

I have a question though - what do you mean by sharecropping? I've heard that before but what does urban farming have to do with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313hero

This is a City not a F'n rual area. I can understand some small farming on Belle Isle, rouge etc. But turning neighborhoods into farms is Total B.S.

---

Let's be honest. This isn't a City, it's a disaster zone. If it were a city, then we wouldn't even be talking about farmland.

Turning neighborhoods into farms is total B.S. These aren't neighborhoods. They're disaster zones. We're not talking about walking into Rosedale Park and tearing down 30 blocks of homes. We're talking about vacant, blighted land.

I don't know what sharecropping has to do with this.

Do you two clowns plan on ruining every thread on this forum?

Departing from sharecropping...

The appeal seems to be:

1) Replace zombie zones w/ something benign. That's not a bad idea.

2) Green. Everyone's favorite color.

The Hantz proposal seems to be industrial scale. Small-scale urban farming for personal and community food is a fine idea. There are major cities [[read successful cities) dedicating plots of downtown land to farming. Rooftops are being explored. Those who dream green are in heaven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old guy

Do you two clowns plan on ruining every thread on this forum?

---

You're right and I apologize. But when someone falsely accuses you of making jokes about slavery you kind of have to respond ya know?

Back on topic - it seems logical that putting the land to use and back on the tax rolls is a good thing. It doesn't have to be farming but it's got to be something and right now that's the only plan on the table.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313hero

I personally dont understand why so many people are swearing by "urban Farming" as a savior to Detroit. MI has enough farm land. Why should a City sell off acres on top of acres of land for a tree farm when theirs plenty of open available space in the burbs and rural areas where that kind of stuff belongs. This is a City not a F'n rual area. I can understand some small farming on Belle Isle, rouge etc. But turning neighborhoods into farms is Total B.S. The company talking about buying 1500 parcels for 560k is beyond rediculous. they not gone do nothing but sit on it and wait untill a developer wants it and sell it for millions. We are not sharecroppers anymore. WTF. Somebody help me.

---

I can't help out at all. I'll say this much on the subject, when you talk to people from other cities or other countries and try and explain this urban farming thing, they usually look at you like you're crazy. I haven't found that it resonates with anybody in a positive manner.

I think slavery was about forcing people to work land. Sharecropping is being used inaccurately here. Sharecropping is a voluntary working of land owned by someone else in a share a percentage of the harvest with the owner. Of course, sharecropping was/is often a big gamble as the rent must be paid.
The Hantz project does not contemplate sharecropping arrangements that I know of.
But the big issue is that farming seems so country and might portray a lack of progress for some people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by softailrider

I can't help out at all. I'll say this much on the subject, when you talk to people from other cities or other countries and try and explain this urban farming thing, they usually look at you like you're crazy. I haven't found that it resonates with anybody in a positive manner.

---

You should talk to people who get out more. A little googling shows amazing interest. For example:

Harvesting at the farm next door - Chicago Tribune - October 13, 2012

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWMAP

But the big issue is that farming seems so country and might portray a lack of progress for some people.

---

I can see that, but the land is worthless right now. Farming [[tree farms, not crops or livestock) may be the only way to add value to it at this point. If/when it becomes valuable then of course the land can be sold to developers so it can be put to better use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JVB

I can see that, but the land is worthless right now. Farming [[tree farms, not crops or livestock) may be the only way to add value to it at this point. If/when it becomes valuable then of course the land can be sold to developers so it can be put to better use.

---

The question is,why is it worthless?

The neighbors to empty lots have expressed their interest in obtaining them for their use long ago,but the city made it a high cost factor,now all of the sudden it is well okay we will allow the neighbor owners first right of refusal?Why could they have not done that in the first place and this would not even be an issue.It was the city that made them worthless now not so?

Urban farming was the neighbors getting together and planting a community garden in a vacant lot,or the fad of growing herbs on your highrise balcony,there is a difference between urban farming and commercial farming in a urban setting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

The question is,why is it worthless?

The neighbors to empty lots have expressed their interest in obtaining them for their use long ago,but the city made it a high cost factor,now all of the sudden it is well okay we will allow the neighbor owners first right of refusal?Why could they have not done that in the first place and this would not even be an issue.It was the city that made them worthless now not so?

Urban farming was the neighbors getting together and planting a community garden in a vacant lot,or the fad of growing herbs on your highrise balcony,there is a difference between urban farming and commercial farming in a urban setting.

---

Fair enough, and I'm not trying to defend the City of Detroit. However, using the lot next door as a vegetable garden will ensure that land never increases in value - why would it? One city lot just does not have enough potential, but if one owner controls a large swath of land it can be combined and put to a more effective use.

It's the same thing with tearing down the Brewsters vs tearing down individuals homes spread out across the city. I definitely understand the desire to tear down the abandoned houses, but the end result is just a bunch of disconnected vacant lots that can't really be put to much use. By tearing down the Brewsters there is a large tract of land available for development. I think what I'm trying to say is it's all a matter of scale. On a larger scale you have a lot more options, does that analogy make sense?

What do you think was a high cost for a vacant parcel? The city sells lots to adjacent property owners for $200.
The city did drag it's feet for years about selling lots due to complicated Title histories that would need to be finalized, an unwillingness [[then) to accept that the urban grid would be forever altered by all the gaps that extra wide lots would cause, a concern that the lots would become storage for old cars, etc.
But the vacant lots, if you could get the City to agree to sell, were never more than a few hundred and the cost of the mandatory fencing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWMAP

What do you think was a high cost for a vacant parcel? The city sells lots to adjacent property owners for $200.
The city did drag it's feet for years about selling lots due to complicated Title histories that would need to be finalized, an unwillingness [[then) to accept that the urban grid would be forever altered by all the gaps that extra wide lots would cause, a concern that the lots would become storage for old cars, etc.
But the vacant lots, if you could get the City to agree to sell, were never more than a few hundred and the cost of the mandatory fencing.

---

and back taxes...and outstanding water bills...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blueidone

and back taxes...and outstanding water bills...

---

That's any property in any city though. Taxes and water always follow the property, not the owner.

I think it would make the most sense if any individual citizen were able to veto any real estate transaction the city pursues. This would ensure that everyone's voice was heard and that all real estate transactions are optimal and fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JVB

Fair enough, and I'm not trying to defend the City of Detroit. However, using the lot next door as a vegetable garden will ensure that land never increases in value - why would it? One city lot just does not have enough potential, but if one owner controls a large swath of land it can be combined and put to a more effective use.

It's the same thing with tearing down the Brewsters vs tearing down individuals homes spread out across the city. I definitely understand the desire to tear down the abandoned houses, but the end result is just a bunch of disconnected vacant lots that can't really be put to much use. By tearing down the Brewsters there is a large tract of land available for development. I think what I'm trying to say is it's all a matter of scale. On a larger scale you have a lot more options, does that analogy make sense?

---

Yes it makes sense as did your other post,my thing is that it is the city deciding the value by controlling its use,so what options are available?

Change the zoning to low density allowing the combining of neighboring lots as some like the urban setting on a larger footprint which makes the larger lot have more value,the other end of the spectrum would be combining multiple lots and say like 3 to 5 acres where they would allow per say a ranch-ete within the urban setting where you could supplement your income by providing fresh veggies to local farmers market.

Granted the market would dictate true value but the city has a lot of tools that can direct the market where to go and create value,which is why I made the comment on the land having no value,it does have value as much as the city desires it to have.They wanted to add value downtown and did what it took to create it,no different in the outer rings,to say it has no value makes it have no value.

Usually when you assemble lots or very large parcels it is because the city would like to offer up for large development with a plan already in place, that is directing growth and adding value,the city does not speculate they should have a growth plan,but it is hard to do I guess if your trying to shrink instead of grow,just think if that same energy was devoted to growing instead of shrinking.

To me this is the city giving up on future growth and sending the message of I quit,demoting instead of promoting and that message is becoming status qou for some of the residents or so it seems at times. They need strong outer rings because if they concentrate only on downtown they will reach a stalemate as other cities have discovered,so they have to be very careful in the decisions made today and how they will impact the future,and not jump on what the latest fad may be.

Poletown should be a stark reminder of this.

Sorry 313 for the diversion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

They need strong outer rings because if they concentrate only on downtown they will reach a stalemate as other cities have discovered,so they have to be very careful in the decisions made today and how they will impact the future,and not jump on what the latest fad may be.

Poletown should be a stark reminder of this.

Sorry 313 for the diversion.

---

I'm confused...was Poletown an outer ring at one point? Where exactly is Poletown?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

I'm confused...was Poletown an outer ring at one point? Where exactly is Poletown?

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poletown,_Detroit

In a nutshell it was an area that was cleared in not so nice of a way to encourage a business to locate there which never happened and left destruction in its wake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poletown,_Detroit

In a nutshell it was an area that was cleared in not so nice of a way to encourage a business to locate there which never happened and left destruction in its wake.

---

Not totally true... the Poletown GM plant is there and fully functional taking up most of the [[north of I-94) Poletown area. It's the periphery of that plant that never spawned additional industrial uses, and sits as unused empty land.

The Poletown area south of I-94 is virtually devoid of life, with most blocks only having a few houses. That's the area around the closed St. Stanislaus Church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

Yes it makes sense as did your other post,my thing is that it is the city deciding the value by controlling its use,so what options are available?

Change the zoning to low density allowing the combining of neighboring lots as some like the urban setting on a larger footprint which makes the larger lot have more value,the other end of the spectrum would be combining multiple lots and say like 3 to 5 acres where they would allow per say a ranch-ete within the urban setting where you could supplement your income by providing fresh veggies to local farmers market.

Granted the market would dictate true value but the city has a lot of tools that can direct the market where to go and create value,which is why I made the comment on the land having no value,it does have value as much as the city desires it to have.They wanted to add value downtown and did what it took to create it,no different in the outer rings,to say it has no value makes it have no value.

Usually when you assemble lots or very large parcels it is because the city would like to offer up for large development with a plan already in place, that is directing growth and adding value,the city does not speculate they should have a growth plan,but it is hard to do I guess if your trying to shrink instead of grow,just think if that same energy was devoted to growing instead of shrinking.

To me this is the city giving up on future growth and sending the message of I quit,demoting instead of promoting and that message is becoming status qou for some of the residents or so it seems at times. They need strong outer rings because if they concentrate only on downtown they will reach a stalemate as other cities have discovered,so they have to be very careful in the decisions made today and how they will impact the future,and not jump on what the latest fad may be.

Poletown should be a stark reminder of this.

Sorry 313 for the diversion.

---

I guess the argument is Hantz is a business owner and therefore wants to make a profit. The only way to do that is to increase the value of the property which will in all likelihood have to involve some manner of development in the surrounding area, would it not? If a private property owner turns the lot next door into a vegetable patch their goal isn't necessarily to do anything to invest in the surrounding area.

Like I said, I'm not 100% a fan of the tree farm idea, but something has to be done because the eastside I grew up on and the eastside that is there now looks like a fucking bomb went off. Something needs to be done and I don't think a garden is going to fix it.

Just a little fyi. Detroit already have a tree farm. And all kinds of other crops in about 7 acres of rouge. I have no problem with them. But basically giving away all that land for "tree farms" is naive

I'd rather them say we selling it to someone who wants to build the world's largest paint ball field than that BS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Motor City Sam

Who is swearing by urban farming as a savior for Detroit? I haven't heard anyone make that claim.

---

Nobody I know either. Sheesh talk about hyperbole.

What I like about urban gardening is the rethinking it displays. People are facing what they have and making something positive with it. Detroit's challenges are immense and require new thinking on just about everything. Urban gardening is one brick in that wall.

Farming is beautification. It provides food, teaches skills, heals the land and, if you have ever gardened, you know it teaches patience and gives great satisfaction.

I find the Hantz project very promising. Taking largely blighted property, growing trees and putting the land back on the tax rolls while providing beauty and much needed revenue. Nobody is getting evicted and those who remain will have a much more pleasant surround than urban prairie tire dumps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313hero

I personally dont understand why so many people are swearing by "urban Farming" as a savior to Detroit. MI has enough farm land. Why should a City sell off acres on top of acres of land for a tree farm when theirs plenty of open available space in the burbs and rural areas where that kind of stuff belongs. This is a City not a F'n rual area. I can understand some small farming on Belle Isle, rouge etc. But turning neighborhoods into farms is Total B.S. The company talking about buying 1500 parcels for 560k is beyond rediculous. they not gone do nothing but sit on it and wait untill a developer wants it and sell it for millions. We are not sharecroppers anymore. WTF. Somebody help me.

---

Why don't you put up or shut up!

If you've got a better offer, present it to the city on your own dime. So far, no one else has presented one. There's just three options. 1) Status quo with the city retaining ownership on an unmaintained garbage dumping ground that the city can't afford to clean up; 2) Let it go for $560K and let the private sector sign an agreement to clean it up and agree to plant 15,000 trees; or 3) Roll the dice and let it go individually to tax auction where history reveals that slumlord speculators like Micheal Kelly and Moroun will continue to scoop them up and let them sit them another decade as a landfill site and urban blight before it goes back to tax auction if they can't hustle the property onto some foreigner on e-bay or some other scam scenario.

There's a huge benefit that this offer is doing. By cleaning up these vacant parcels, you'll not only raise the value of these vacant parcels, but you'll also raise the value of the individually owned houses in those subdivisions. Also, if the property values go up, they might become desirable again for another use.

Think of this. If you have a block of 20 parcels and 8 parcels have individually owned houses that are occupied and the rest are tax sales filled with boarded up houses or vacant parcels with tires and other urban blight on them, how much do you think the houses and vacant parcels in the neighborhood are worth? If you clean up the whole block, does the value of all the properties in the neighborhood go up or down? If the property values go up in the neighborhood, do the tax assessed values of all the properties in the neighborhood go up [[which means more overall taxes will be paid than any other scenario)?

This offer is way better than any of the alternatives. It is not ridiculous. It makes perfect sense. If you've got a better offer, put up or shut up.

Urban farming can be good for neighborhoods. Programs can be developed to help homeless, addicts, and veterans get back into the workforce through farming. Schools can benefit from students learning how to farm. These would all be small-scale operations.

The problem is what to do with acres of land nobody wants to build on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313hero

I personally dont understand why so many people are swearing by "urban Farming" as a savior to Detroit. MI has enough farm land. Why should a City sell off acres on top of acres of land for a tree farm when theirs plenty of open available space in the burbs and rural areas where that kind of stuff belongs. This is a City not a F'n rual area. I can understand some small farming on Belle Isle, rouge etc. But turning neighborhoods into farms is Total B.S. The company talking about buying 1500 parcels for 560k is beyond rediculous. they not gone do nothing but sit on it and wait untill a developer wants it and sell it for millions. We are not sharecroppers anymore. WTF. Somebody help me.

---

I heard NASA's going to put up a technology development center because of all the rocket scientists in Detroit. Seriously, you need to do some research and take a good look @ what's going on, before posting this emotionally charged ghetto BS. What do you think's going to happen, this guy's going to send trucks through neighborhoods taking small children to work on his farm? C'mon man, all the word "farm" means is something is going to be growing there. In this case it's trees. I don't know where people get these livestock, sharecropper, and all the other BS rumors from. This "precious jewel" land has been sitting unused, covered with debris for 35 years, getting worse, and no one wants it. Just like no one wants the thousands of other debris covered, unmowed, land in Detroit. That's fact. If in the future, he does decide to "develop" the land, so what? The development is going to need City services, it's going to be paying City taxes. Right now we have nothing and no prospects. Maybe it's time to start thinking differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davewindsor

There's a huge benefit that this offer is doing. By cleaning up these vacant parcels, you'll not only raise the value of these vacant parcels, but you'll also raise the value of the individually owned houses in those subdivisions. Also, if the property values go up, they might become desirable again for another use.

Think of this. If you have a block of 20 parcels and 8 parcels have individually owned houses that are occupied and the rest are tax sales filled with boarded up houses or vacant parcels with tires and other urban blight on them, how much do you think the houses and vacant parcels in the neighborhood are worth? If you clean up the whole block, does the value of all the properties in the neighborhood go up or down? If the property values go up in the neighborhood, do the tax assessed values of all the properties in the neighborhood go up [[which means more overall taxes will be paid than any other scenario)?

This offer is way better than any of the alternatives. It is not ridiculous. It makes perfect sense. If you've got a better offer, put up or shut up.

---

If the properties are available at tax auction for $500 that would then make the value at $500 as one would not pay $3000 for something that can be purchased for $500.So you now have an established value.

So if for instance properties were sold for $200 that would then place a value on surrounding properties at $200 ,comps set the worth.

Or you could go a little bit further ,

For example, Henneberry and Barrows [[1990) find
that the effects of exclusive agricultural zoning in Wisconsin on property values are negative effects for smaller parcels close to urban areas and positive for large parcels farther from urban areas.

In a recent analysis that uses propensity score matching and instrumental variables to account for the zoning
endogeneity, Lui and Lynch [[2011) find that low-density zoning has differentiated impacts on rural land
parcel depending on whether they are resource versus residential parcels. Specifically, resource parcels’
land values are unaffected and residential parcels’ values decrease by 20-50% with the low density rural
zoning constraint.

http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstrea...5%203%2011.pdf

So while it would be clear that the general look of the area would be improved by cleaning up of the area ,weather or not it would actually increase property values for the surrounding neighbors? I think that would be up for dispute.

"These issues are important in the legal debates at the national level involving takings cases, and they are highly relevant to Oregon's Measure 37, passed by voters in November 2004. [[4) Measure 37 requires that when a land-use regulation "has the effect of reducing the fair market value of the property," then either a payment must be made to landowners equal to the reduction in the fair market value, or a waiver must be granted from the regulation. [[5) Determining whether land-use regulations have had positive or negative effects on land values is, of course, a central question in this context."

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+ef...s.-a0144981210

I would believe that by offering the existing property owners first right of refusal the city council has pretty much eliminated the above possibility.

It all sounds good and well on the surface but this is new territory when you start introducing urban farming on a large scale,cross the Ts and dot the I's ,if the measure had flown through with no thought other then yea it looks good and in the case I listed above how much more monies would it have cost the city in litigation and future buy outs..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

If the properties are available at tax auction for $500 that would then make the value at $500 as one would not pay $3000 for something that can be purchased for $500.So you now have an established value.

So if for instance properties were sold for $200 that would then place a value on surrounding properties at $200 ,comps set the worth.

Or you could go a little bit further ,

For example, Henneberry and Barrows [[1990) find
that the effects of exclusive agricultural zoning in Wisconsin on property values are negative effects for smaller parcels close to urban areas and positive for large parcels farther from urban areas.

In a recent analysis that uses propensity score matching and instrumental variables to account for the zoning
endogeneity, Lui and Lynch [[2011) find that low-density zoning has differentiated impacts on rural land
parcel depending on whether they are resource versus residential parcels. Specifically, resource parcels’
land values are unaffected and residential parcels’ values decrease by 20-50% with the low density rural
zoning constraint.

http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstrea...5%203%2011.pdf

So while it would be clear that the general look of the area would be improved by cleaning up of the area ,weather or not it would actually increase property values for the surrounding neighbors? I think that would be up for dispute.

"These issues are important in the legal debates at the national level involving takings cases, and they are highly relevant to Oregon's Measure 37, passed by voters in November 2004. [[4) Measure 37 requires that when a land-use regulation "has the effect of reducing the fair market value of the property," then either a payment must be made to landowners equal to the reduction in the fair market value, or a waiver must be granted from the regulation. [[5) Determining whether land-use regulations have had positive or negative effects on land values is, of course, a central question in this context."

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+ef...s.-a0144981210

I would believe that by offering the existing property owners first right of refusal the city council has pretty much eliminated the above possibility.

It all sounds good and well on the surface but this is new territory when you start introducing urban farming on a large scale,cross the Ts and dot the I's ,if the measure had flown through with no thought other then yea it looks good and in the case I listed above how much more monies would it have cost the city in litigation and future buy outs..

---

First off, the tax assessors don't agree with your auction sale comps establishing value of neighboring properties. If you have a regular house in a subdivision where regular houses sell for $100K and you've had foreclosures or auctions where properties went for $15,000, take a guess what the tax assessor is going to say your house is worth on tax appeal [[from my experience and others I know who've tried to fight it at the tax appeal board)? Take a lucky guess. It's still worth $100K in the tax assessors eyes because comps from foreclosures and tax auctions are irrelevant to tax assessment. Only normal market transactions are relevant with the tax assessor. So tax assessments will not go down this way. I guarantee it, especially since Hantz Farms said one of his goals is to create scarcity so property values go up.

The only group that cares about foreclosure and tax sale comps in establishing value are lenders. A lender's appraisal can't be used to lower the tax assessments.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blueidone

and back taxes...and outstanding water bills...

---

Can you cite your source on this? I understand that taxes and water bills generally don't go away when property is transferred, but when the city gets title to these properties, could the city also forgive taxes and water? I've noticed -- particularly in southwest Detroit -- that many people had acquired the empty lots next to their houses. Some have made for very nice additions. If it were so cost-prohibitive, I can't imagine there would be this much participation. I did a little googling, but could not come up with a definitive city policy on this issue. So, Blueiodine, can you point me to the source that backs up your claim?

I think what many people seem to be missing here is a bit of cultural/historical context behind what may seem to some to be hyperbolic rhetoric surrounding this issue. If your ancestors had spent decades trying to escape an isolated, exclusionary, and extremely poor rural past then 'farming' might not sound like such a benign concept to you for the fate of your neighborhood or the economic life of your city. In fact, it may sound a little too uncomfortably close to the deprivations of Jim Crow rural life and the sharecropping system, which were a reality in the relatively recent family histories of many Detroit residents.

I'm not necessarily against large-scale urban gardening, or the growing of useful or salable crops on our empty urban land [[although I'm less sanguine about wide scale private land usage like Hantz). However, I also feel that people who are dismissing objections that come from a real emotional/historical source as "crazy" or "ghetto BS" are just not listening to those who will be the most affected or thinking clearly about the context of their objections.

Some people really can't seem to understand that "urban farming" is not something that automatically sounds great to everyone [[certainly not as good as "economic development" or "jobs"), especially if your family came to the city specifically to escape a rural society. This idea may need a much more specific sell on its actual practical and economic merits, rather than its utopian promise, to bring many Detroiters around to favoring it. Dismissing their objections out of hand as not conforming to your vision of the world isn't helpful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

I think what many people seem to be missing here is a bit of cultural/historical context behind what seems to be the hyperbolic rhetoric surrounding this issue. If your ancestors had spent decades trying to escape an isolated, exclusionary, and extremely poor rural past then 'farming' might not sound like such a benign concept for the fate of your neighborhood or the economic life of your city. In fact, it may sound a little too uncomfortably close to the deprivations of the sharecropping system, which are a reality in the relatively recent family histories of many Detroit residents.

I'm not against large-scale urban gardening, or the growing of useful or salable crops on our empty urban land [[although I'm less sanguine about wide scale private land usage like Hantz). However, I also feel that people who are dismissing objections coming from this emotional/historical source as "crazy" or "ghetto BS" are not listening to those who will be the most affected or thinking clearly about the context of their objections. Some don't seem to understand that "urban farming" is not something that automatically sounds great to everyone, and that it may need a much more specific sell on its actual economic merits to bring many people to favor it.

---

It's a fair point about historical context, but I think why it sounds so crazy to people is this is a tree farm, not a plantation and nobody is going to be "working the land" other than whoever Hantz hires to cut trees down. It seems like a bit of a stretch to make a comparison there.

I agree they [[he and the council) need to do a better job of explaining exactly what the plan is and how it will benefit the city of Detroit. To object to it solely because he is white though is no better than all the racist "whites only" neighborhood associations of decades past that objected to black property owners moving in. People should be allowed to buy property wherever they want. If anybody "owns Detroit" it's certainly not blacks or whites, but rather the Native Americans that were here first. Everybody needs to get over themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JVB

It's a fair point about historical context, but I think why it sounds so crazy to people is this is a tree farm, not a plantation

---

So, while it's a fair point about historical context, the reason I am going to ignore and show no sensitivity to that historical context is ...

"Everybody needs to get over themselves." Exactly the kind of thing people say when they are unable or unwilling to actually listen to others and take their point of view seriously.

Also, I really wasn't addressing the Hantz project, which I oppose for reasons that are not really related to national or local racial history, but the overall concept of 'urban farming' as in 313's original post.

Since you quoted my post EA, I feel obliged to reply. my "ghetto BS" comment was in reply to the "sharecropping" comment from the OP. I'm nowhere near sold on "Urban Farming" as Detroit's or any other places salvation. My objection is to these kind of comments is that there's always some kind of slavery motive to "the man" wanting to do anything in the COD. Slavery isn't the only form of genecide that was exercised against a race of people on this planet. In Detroit, that kind of mentality is a big factor in moving this City forward with any kind of progress. Your reply "I think what many people seem to be missing here is a bit of cultural/historical context behind what seems to be the hyperbolic rhetoric surrounding this issue. If your ancestors had spent decades trying to escape an isolated, exclusionary, and extremely poor rural past then 'farming' might not sound like such a benign concept for the fate of your neighborhood or the economic life of your city. In fact, it may sound a little too uncomfortably close to the deprivations of the sharecropping system, which are a reality in the relatively recent family histories of many Detroit residents." Is total nonsense. Show me one stitch of evidence that the Hantz TREE Farm proposal suggests anywhere that Detroiters will pick Oak leaves in return for meals @ the end of the day, and a place to sleep. I know what slavery was, and I know what sharecropping was. I just fail to see what any of that has to do with the business @ hantz. I'm not going to play that game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

So, while it's a fair point about historical context, the reason I am going to ignore and show no sensitivity to that historical context is ...

---

Maybe because it's a tree farm [[ie woods), and not a plantation? When people like you equate that to slavery and sharecropping, you're intentionally trying to stir up racial animosity. Well done, I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

"Everybody needs to get over themselves." Exactly the kind of thing people say when they are unable or unwilling to actually listen to others and take their point of view seriously.

---

Everybody includes everybody - Hantz, the Council, blacks, whites, etc. For fucks sake it's just some goddamn trees. Only in Detroit can the planting of trees on vacant, blighted land turn into a fucking racial travesty. You want to know why this city will never recover - because of thinking like this.

You bitch about white flight, then you bitch about white reinvestment. Holy fucking shit this city is dysfunctionally retarded.

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. So what's different for the people who are so afraid that they absurdly fear that they will be forced to work John Hantz's woodland?

Their problem is not "sharecropping" fears. They see a reversion to farmland as a judgment on the management of Detroit for the last four decades. Yes, a once-bustling city of more than a million abandoned and reduced to woodland ideas in only four decades. You may now weigh in about all the academic literature that cites racism of the people who left - but ask yourself why NOBODY [[pretty much) wanted to move here into the City over the last four decades.

So people are afraid about the destruction of a city to the point that it is being commercially re-forested is going to play on the national news. So they bring in the absurd idea that they are going to be forced to sharecrop John Hantz's land!

And the enablers all join the chorus. If not farms - what? I am a sixth-generation Detroiter. I don't really see anything else for us. I agree with a poster above. let's hear your ideas if farming is not to be tolerated because it cuts too close to admitting failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JVB

Maybe because it's a tree farm [[ie woods), and not a plantation? When people like you equate that to slavery and sharecropping, you're intentionally trying to stir up racial animosity. Well done, I guess.

---

Well, Eastside Al made some really good points. And, like I said before, there are some Detroit residents whose grandparents were slaves. For a lot of Detroit residents, the Old South is the old country, and these people came North looking for new opportunities, a more cosmopolitan lifestyle, social equality. And, when you tell these people that the answer may be working on land, or turning a city into an agricultural laboratory, you're going to get some hurt feelings and some pretty strong reactions.

Either that's a fair point or it isn't. Say it's a fair point, acknowledge why people might react like that, and then move on with a new understanding of your fellow metro Detroiters.

"I know what slavery was, and I know what sharecropping was. I just fail to see what any of that has to do with the business @ hantz. I'm not going to play that game."

"You want to know why this city will never recover - because of shit like this."

Again, a complete failure to listen to, or even attempt to understand, the source of the feelings and objections of others. As long as so many insist on sitting in their own trenches, talking past one another and dismissing others as being too stupid to know what's good for them, we really are going nowhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313hero

Just a little fyi. Detroit already have a tree farm. And all kinds of other crops in about 7 acres of rouge. I have no problem with them. But basically giving away all that land for "tree farms" is naive

---

You're talking about the Detroit Black Food Security Network, aren't you?

http://detroitblackfoodsecurity.org/

That's a BIG farm. Do you know if they pay taxes on that land, or reimburse the City for the water they use to irrigate those crops? I know they tap into City hydrants. Do you feel they're turning Detroiters into sharecroppers too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Well, Eastside Al made some really good points. And, like I said before, there are some Detroit residents whose grandparents were slaves. For a lot of Detroit residents, the Old South is the old country, and these people came North looking for new opportunities, a more cosmopolitan lifestyle, social equality. And, when you tell these people that the answer may be working on land, or turning a city into an agricultural laboratory, you're going to get some hurt feelings and some pretty strong reactions.

Either that's a fair point or it isn't. Say it's a fair point, acknowledge why people might react like that, and then move on with a new understanding of your fellow metro Detroiters.

---

That is a fair point, and you seem to be less filled with racial invective today so I have no problem agreeing with you. I'd love to hear other solutions, I'm not sold on a tree farm I just think it's a lot better than vacant blighted land and would make neighborhoods safer and more attractive which would probably increase property values. If there is a better solution, let's see them. Continuing on with more of the same isn't going to cut it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

"I know what slavery was, and I know what sharecropping was. I just fail to see what any of that has to do with the business @ hantz. I'm not going to play that game."

"You want to know why this city will never recover - because of shit like this."

Again, a complete failure to listen to, or even attempt to understand, the source of the feelings and objections of others. As long as so many insist on sitting in their own trenches, talking past one another and dismissing others as being too stupid to know what's good for them, we really are going nowhere.

---

Thanx so much for putting words in my mouth, Al.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Well, Eastside Al made some really good points. And, like I said before, there are some Detroit residents whose grandparents were slaves. For a lot of Detroit residents, the Old South is the old country, and these people came North looking for new opportunities, a more cosmopolitan lifestyle, social equality. And, when you tell these people that the answer may be working on land, or turning a city into an agricultural laboratory, you're going to get some hurt feelings and some pretty strong reactions.

Either that's a fair point or it isn't. Say it's a fair point, acknowledge why people might react like that, and then move on with a new understanding of your fellow metro Detroiters.

---

I agree that the likelihood of hurt feelings and strong reactions is high. I think that it's unreasonable to expect that people aren't going to react to major changes like this.

At the same time, community leaders -- rather than stoking those emotional reactions -- should refuse to let it affect public policy. If public policy is going to be determined by emotional reactions, then we'll make really bad long-term decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

I agree that the likelihood of hurt feelings and strong reactions is high. I think that it's unreasonable to expect that people aren't going to react to major changes like this.

At the same time, community leaders -- rather than stoking those emotional reactions -- should refuse to let it affect public policy. If public policy is going to be determined by emotional reactions, then we'll make really bad long-term decisions.

---

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.

so many people in Detroit have been here for multiple ensuing generations already-- and scarce few who are 60+ could claim to have legitimately come from some kind of rural background and/or outright jim crow conditions-- so I'm not automatically buying the "I left rural [[fill in the blank) to escape damn corn fields.." ideology, nope.

what is is, is that too many simply object on "principle"-- they don't understand it, and what's more, they don't want to understand it; so the "slavery" reflex is the most convenient thing to rationalize.. so many people who have grown up under urban/inner city conditions have become socialized to think that this current status quo is literally the only "civilized" way to live- with smokestacks and smog on your immediate landscape, and relatively little in the way of "green space".. Belle Isle is okay to "visit", but if your neighborhood had "forests" that would be just unconscionable..

People have been socialized to think of greener suburbs/rural areas as "the sticks" or the "boondocks" at best, and "klan land" at the worst- and all "farmers" are uneducated goobers with missing teeth and who wear dusty overalls day in day out all week.. a lot of kids are growing up literally thinking that produce, ultimately comes from "the store"... the chain of cultivation/distribution is totally lost on them.. and of course, no self-respecting African-American would ever be involved in agriculture/forestry for a living unless they were just.. losers...

too many people hold onto the notion that new, huge sprawling [[fill in the blank) factories are around the corner, but...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

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.

---

Yep, right on the ball there.

And just to add, how about actually SHOWING true concern about what these folks have to say about the issues at hand. Maybe you don't know what you're talking about after all and maybe that person's input can be beneficial.

"Everybody includes everybody - Hantz, the Council, blacks, whites, etc. For fucks sake it's just some goddamn trees. Only in Detroit can the planting of trees on vacant, blighted land turn into a fucking racial travesty. You want to know why this city will never recover - because of thinking like this.

You bitch about white flight, then you bitch about white reinvestment. Holy fucking shit this city is dysfunctionally retarded."

This should be under every "Detroit City Limits" sign!

"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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p69rrh51

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p69rrh51

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..... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davewindsor

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davewindsor

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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]

Quote:

---

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]

Quote:

---

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]

Quote:

---

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.

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davewindsor

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?

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

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"?:cool: