Hantz Farms urban agriculture plan close to reality for Detroit

**cla1945** · July-06-12, 09:04 PM

Two sentences that sums up many of the problems in Detroit:

"A variety of neighborhood activists and nonprofit leaders have opposed the Hantz Farms project as a corporate intrusion into the city's flourishing community gardening movement. In an e-mail this week to other activists, Malik Yakini, head of the Detroit Food Policy Council, a nonprofit advisory board, called the Hantz proposal a "land grab."

"And he said he was troubled by any plan that allows "a wealthy white man to acquire large tracts of publicly owned land" in Detroit"

Why does the race card have to be thrown out every time someone wants to do a good thing for Detroit?

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012207050499

**rb336** · July-06-12, 09:59 PM

pure stupidity

**stasu1213** · July-07-12, 07:15 AM

No wonder fires had been set in this area

**kenp** · July-07-12, 09:21 AM

A land grab in Detroit. haha
How long does it take for a hardwood tree to mature to harvest?
I dont see how this brings any jobs to the area. Plants some trees and wait 30 years?

**Patrick** · July-07-12, 10:18 AM

And sure enough, the Freep Facebook comments section has gone full retard.

**internet_pseudopod** · July-07-12, 11:42 AM

Wow, I had never seen the parcel of land that Hantz is supposed to be farming before. I always imagined it was somewhere on the east side in the middle of nowhere. This is a pretty sweet piece of land bordered by Jefferson and across from Belle Isle. Anyone that thinks this is going to remain a tree farm might need their head examined.

**Big Dan** · July-07-12, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by internet_pseudopod

Wow, I had never seen where the parcel of land that Hantz is supposed to be farming before. I always imagined it was somewhere on the east side in the middle of nowhere. This is a pretty sweet piece of land bordered by Jefferson and across from Belle Isle. Anyone that thinks this is going to remain a tree farm might need their head examined.

No Kidding ! We can't sell you Belle Isle, but we got some property right next to it...

**detroitsgwenivere** · July-07-12, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick

And sure enough, the Freep Facebook comments section has gone full retard.

Actually, I learned more from the comments than I did from the article. Aside from the full retardation, lots of thoughtful questions are being asked [[for once).

**mikefmich** · July-07-12, 05:40 PM

At this point in time, anything that isn't illegal and will involve getting property back on the tax rolls ought been done post haste, even if it's a dairy farmer.

**SWMAP** · July-07-12, 06:44 PM

I wonder where all the people now so full of anxiety over this effort - proposed and discussed out in the open for more than three years now were when Karen Dumas and her husband, real estate and strip club developer Timothy Cook were greased to buy. "sweet" parcel right on the Riverfront for nothing [[or nearly) so as to "develop " it? That was a pretty secret deal - but they are Black so there was no outrage, anxiety and concern that something was afoot.

**lukabottle** · July-07-12, 07:37 PM

Here is an opinion piece from the Michigan Citizen.

http://michigancitizen.com/land-misuse-p11369-1.htm

Land misuse

Published
• Sun, Jul 08, 2012

By Shea Howell
Special to the Michigan Citizen

John Hantz is aggressively pushing the city into handing over 1,900 lots for $300 each. He is telling the city it would be a terrific deal for us. Hantz Farms would beautify blighted neighborhoods, put land back on the tax roles and take over needed maintenance. He says it�s a deal the city shouldn�t refuse.

Last week, Hantz and the mayor hastily called a news conference to unveil the deal. The event turned out to be a bust, thanks to the intervention of some members of the City Council and the City Planning Commission. Both raised several concerns.

First, Hantz is talking about taking over nearly 200 acres of land. This is an area roughly half the size of the sprawling Poletown Plant. His proposal specifically excludes any agreement about future development. So, if farming doesn�t work out, he is free to do whatever he wants with the land. Second, large-scale farming brings the city into conflict with state law and the Right to Farm Act. The Detroit City Planning Commission�s Urban Agricultural Workgroup and the Detroit Food Policy Council are working out these legal complications. This group has been working diligently to craft policies that reflect the wisdom and experience of the growing number of small urban gardeners. Now Hantz is proposing to bypass this process.

Full article here

Moderator note: Per Forum Rules, please do not copy full articles.

**stasu1213** · July-07-12, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by lukabottle

Here is an opinion piece from the Michigan Citizen.

http://michigancitizen.com/land-misuse-p11369-1.htm

Land misuse

Published
• Sun, Jul 08, 2012

By Shea Howell
Special to the Michigan Citizen

John Hantz is aggressively pushing the city into handing over 1,900 lots for $300 each. He is telling the city it would be a terrific deal for us. Hantz Farms would beautify blighted neighborhoods, put land back on the tax roles and take over needed maintenance. He says it�s a deal the city shouldn�t refuse.

Last week, Hantz and the mayor hastily called a news conference to unveil the deal. The event turned out to be a bust, thanks to the intervention of some members of the City Council and the City Planning Commission. Both raised several concerns.

First, Hantz is talking about taking over nearly 200 acres of land. This is an area roughly half the size of the sprawling Poletown Plant. His proposal specifically excludes any agreement about future development. So, if farming doesn�t work out, he is free to do whatever he wants with the land. Second, large-scale farming brings the city into conflict with state law and the Right to Farm Act. The Detroit City Planning Commission�s Urban Agricultural Workgroup and the Detroit Food Policy Council are working out these legal complications. This group has been working diligently to craft policies that reflect the wisdom and experience of the growing number of small urban gardeners. Now Hantz is proposing to bypass this process.

Full article here

Moderator note: Per Forum Rules, please do not copy full articles.

He probably greased the palms of the Mayor and some council members

**royce** · July-08-12, 01:21 AM

stasu1213, why cut and paste a long post that was the last post prior to yours and only add one sentence? Anyway, the issue of Hantz being able to buy these city-owned lots is no different than Jerome Bettis or Dave Bing getting city-owned land to build condos on the riverfront. The difference is Hantz is a "wealthy white guy" and Bing and Bettis are black. Some Detroiters will always raise cane when the person perceived to get an advantage over others is white as opposed to being black. I think some opposed Bing getting riverfront property because he didn't live in the city. However, there doesn't seem to be any opposition to local boy and super bowl hero Jerome Bettis getting parcels of land of the riverfront.

What amazes me is that those parcels of land that Hantz wants to purchase probably were available to residents in the "disputed" area a while ago when there were more homeowners. As I understand the procedure for selling city-owned property, the city would offer homeowners next to a vacant lot first crack at it if the previous owner did not want it or didn't pay prior property taxes. Now, are these nonprofits that want to have "community gardens" on these vacant lots upset because they never had a chance to buy these lots or are they upset because after all these years Hantz is able to do something that they couldn't?

I don't understand the mentality of some Detroiters and some Detroit organizations that essentially say, "If you're intelligent, enterprising, have money, or white, you need not offer your help because we don't need it." Someone's offer to help should not be based on their skin color.

**internet_pseudopod** · July-08-12, 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by SWMAP

i wonder where all the people now so full of anxiety over this effort - proposed and discussed out in the open for more than three years now were when Karen Dumas and her husband, real estate and strip club developer Timothy Cook were greased to buy. "sweet" parcel right on the Riverfront for nothing [[or nearly) so as to "develop " it? That was a pretty secret deal - but they are Black so there was no outrage, anxiety and concern that something was afoot.

Maybe the lack of response has less to do their race and more to do with the fact that it was a secret deal. This development has been openly debated and it's premise appears to be absurd to nearly every observer no matter how much rah rah you but behind it. Hantz wants to take prime urban real estate and farm trees...really? The bottom line is I don't like being lied to. Ten years from now this isn't going to be a tree farm. I would rather he say that I want this land for 600K and in return I am going to create these tax revenue producing improvements. Instead of the truth I am being sold a project that makes me go "meh". The project produces few jobs and little prestige for the city. What it does do exceptionally well is serve as a place holder for the land. A temporary development that removes the stigma of being a dead beat property owner from Hantz's resume until his true plans come to fruition.

**Lowell** · July-08-12, 10:43 AM

I find myself both intrigued and cautious about the Hantz proposal. This is a very interesting response to Detroit's unique urban planning situation -- how to plan in the face of shrinkage as opposed to growth to which all traditional urban planning has been focused.

The creation of a clear urban farming policy/ordinances is needed and is being formed. To allay any fears of this be a disguise for land-squatting until some possible future improvements would allow redevelopment, the policy should simply disallow rezoning of the land for anything other than agriculture, otherwise ownership reverts to the city.

The race card injection is a bit of a distracting cheap shot particularly as the John Gallagher Freep article notes that Hantz is a city resident. So the discussion is and should be among city residents and leadership.

From all I have read in the media and on this forum over the years of this proposal, the discussion about it has been very open and very positive. At first blush it sounded great but then when pesticide usage and the idea of allowing others to similarly buy lots are weighed, some of the polish starts to fall off.

As for pesticides that is something that should be regulated and extended to cover the [IMO] overuse of lawn fertilizers and pesticides by the average homeowner. I would like to see the policy say something saying, sure you can farm vegetables and other edibles, just as long as it is organic.

Let's not lose sight of the benefits. Taking those properties off the city ledgers with the expense of maintenance, adding them on the tax rolls and removing their blight strikes me as a win-win-win opportunity. There will also be some jobs created, not a lot but a bunch more than what those lots create now.

This will also have to lead to an up-valuation the remaining islands of property. Imagine having a house in an overgrown urban prairie tire dump and suddenly be surrounded by maintained forest or farm. I'll bet the smart money will start flipping those as soon the policy is formulated.

**dmike76** · July-08-12, 11:14 AM

What he'll probably do is buy it on the cheap, do the farm thing, and then when/if that area recovers some more he'll sell the land to developers at a nice profit. You know what? fine. He's paying for the whole thing. Money for the city, blight gone, land is used, and then a chance for some housing later which would bring more tax dollars into the city. Why is that bad?

**oladub** · July-08-12, 11:25 AM

Four or five lots equal one acre. An acre of land is 210' square. At $1,500 an acre, it would be cheap as farm land. Crop land, where I live in Wisconsin is about $3,000/acre and isn't always all usable or flat. In Iowa, cropland costs at least twice that. Of course, the tires would have to be cleared out and maybe some pavement and that all costs money. This would be in some ways ideal for intensive vegetable farming, or floral sales, with sidelines of meat. Organic methods would increase crop prices. Some of the crop could be sold retail and on site. Local high schools, or even Wayne State, could work botany and agriculture into their curriculums with summer jobs for those majors.

The real money is in converting ag land to commercial or high density zoning. The utilities are already in and worth more than the purchase price. I came across an oil company which bought ag land well outside of Sacramento. By planting orange groves, the company got huge property tax deductions until the trees matured, this cut the carrying costs of the land. The plan was to sell oranges until the trees played out. By this time, it was anticipated that the land would be part of the expanded Sacramento area. The land would be rezoned and a financial killing would be made. Even if the company decided to sell the land along the way, all those factors would be built into it and the land could be sold for a hefty margin.

Not to be too critical of a plan that is an upgrade to vacant land piling up with trash, but this looks like the same play. I think the city would be better selling off large parcels like this to retired Detroit workers in collective investment trusts perhaps run by their unions. It could still be rented out as farmland. As Detroit is short on cash but loaded with unsellable properties, this could be a retirement option for city employees. As the Romans handed out free border land to retiring legionaires as their pension or the US government handed out land to build transcontinental railroads, Detroit could pay off its debts and resettle parts of Detroit for free. Maybe giving land away to developers for 'farmland' will achieve the same end.

**corktownyuppie** · July-08-12, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by oladub

The real money is in converting ag land to commercial or high density zoning. The utilities are already in and worth more than the purchase price. I came across an oil company which bought ag land well outside of Sacramento. By planting orange groves, the company got huge property tax deductions until the trees matured, this cut the carrying costs of the land. The plan was to sell oranges until the trees played out. By this time, it was anticipated that the land would be part of the expanded Sacramento area. The land would be rezoned and a financial killing would be made. Even if the company decided to sell the land along the way, all those factors would be built into it and the land could be sold for a hefty margin.

Not to be too critical of a plan that is an upgrade to vacant land piling up with trash, but this looks like the same play. I think the city would be better selling off large parcels like this to retired Detroit workers in collective investment trusts perhaps run by their unions. It could still be rented out as farmland. As Detroit is short on cash but loaded with unsellable properties, this could be a retirement option for city employees. As the Romans handed out free border land to retiring legionaires as their pension or the US government handed out land to build transcontinental railroads, Detroit could pay off its debts and resettle parts of Detroit for free. Maybe giving land away to developers for 'farmland' will achieve the same end.

Good points, IMHO.

Few thoughts:

[[1) The real money is made when converting to high-density housing...IF it converts to high-density housing. I mean, yes, that location is stellar. But how many stellar locations in Detroit are at completely unrealistically depressed prices? Hell, you can buy 10 houses for $5,000 each, fix them up, and then collect $5,000 per MONTH in rent! So, while yes, I don't want to see public funds to pad private profits, the reality is that those profits are hardly guaranteed. Hardly. There are a lot of ifs, ands, and buts that will need to happen before that land is converted to high-density housing...one of which is that people need to be willing to move back to the city.

[[2) If that land does turn into high-density housing and Hantz profits from it, that's a good problem to have. In fact, could you imagine what would happen if 20 Hantz's bought up 20 5-acre lots, and successfully turned them into fully occupied high-density housing operations? Can you imagine how much badly needed tax revenue that would bring in to the city? How many firefighters, police, and lights they would support. That's not a bad problem.

[[3) I like your idea of a long-term lease to Hantz, perhaps by the pension fund. This will help the pension stay solvent, allow the pensioners to benefit from the property appreciation if it happens [[btw, when I say benefit, I really mean "not lose their pensions due to insolvency"), and such a deal could be structured so that Hantz could have some equity in the deal so that he benefits as well.

Lots of ways to skin a cat. None of them are guaranteed success or money for anyone. And remember, Detroit's not in a position to deal here. The worse thing for Detroit isn't that they do the wrong thing...it's that they do nothing.

**stasu1213** · July-08-12, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by royce

stasu1213, why cut and paste a long post that was the last post prior to yours and only add one sentence? Anyway, the issue of Hantz being able to buy these city-owned lots is no different than Jerome Bettis or Dave Bing getting city-owned land to build condos on the riverfront. The difference is Hantz is a "wealthy white guy" and Bing and Bettis are black. Some Detroiters will always raise cane when the person perceived to get an advantage over others is white as opposed to being black. I think some opposed Bing getting riverfront property because he didn't live in the city. However, there doesn't seem to be any opposition to local boy and super bowl hero Jerome Bettis getting parcels of land of the riverfront.

What amazes me is that those parcels of land that Hantz wants to purchase probably were available to residents in the "disputed" area a while ago when there were more homeowners. As I understand the procedure for selling city-owned property, the city would offer homeowners next to a vacant lot first crack at it if the previous owner did not want it or didn't pay prior property taxes. Now, are these nonprofits that want to have "community gardens" on these vacant lots upset because they never had a chance to buy these lots or are they upset because after all these years Hantz is able to do something that they couldn't?

I don't understand the mentality of some Detroiters and some Detroit organizations that essentially say, "If you're intelligent, enterprising, have money, or white, you need not offer your help because we don't need it." Someone's offer to help should not be based on their skin color.

Where in my blog had I written anything pertaining to Hantz's skin color. Please quote me if I had. I had criticized the "Black Slate" on this site. I would welcome a white mayor or a mayor of any race who is not bought off by GM, other corporations or special interest groups, or by anyone who is white, black, or any race. The black mayors of the past had been "bought and paid for" by entities for the best interest of the corporations or entities instead of the best interest of the people.

**SWMAP** · July-08-12, 01:35 PM

Corktown is right - there's plenty of other "sweet" properties in Detroit and no developers in sight. The property under discussion obviously could just as easily be acquired right now by some guy who wants to build a factory or a hospital or even a casino - but no one does want to that here now and probably not in John Hantz's lifetime. However, maybe there are some ministers who want it. Or maybe some people like the guy over by alter Riad who assembled five properties on one block and built that cheap, tacky monstrosity of a stretched out ranchy-Tudor with cheap siding and [[think) a five car attached garage stretched across the front. There's also a huge cement fountain and no other landscaping but the huge cement, sun -baked driveway. The City allows ugly stuff like that now because no one has any standards for our City any more.There's more of that in our future, as it is. I say, bring on the farm for a generation or two. Clean the air; remediate the land. Maybe there will be beauty in store for Detroit then.

**313WX** · July-08-12, 02:26 PM

It's better than Z World.

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · July-08-12, 04:30 PM

Land Grab in the City of Detroit? LMAO!

It would be fascinating to me to see what impact getting rid of blighted vacant land in that area would have on the remaining occupied lots. Might they not become more desirable?

**kenp** · July-09-12, 07:45 AM

The whole thing sounds fishy but as the old saying states, "its only business"

**iheartthed** · July-09-12, 09:02 AM

Sounds like another half-baked development scheme for Detroit.

**A. Seiferlein** · July-09-12, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I say, bring on the farm for a generation or two. Clean the air; remediate the land. Maybe there will be beauty in store for Detroit then.

I agree with SWMAP. Maybe this is some underhanded scheme to raise tons of money for himself, but in the meantime, until the land IS worth something, at least it will be used for SOMETHING other than dumping trash.