Detroit City Council set to vote on biggest land sale in city's history

[detroitsgwenivere]

What crap. Maybe jeffdebruyn can join forces with sneavling and the two of them can clean up the tires and garbage dumped on this Detroit precious jewel and pay the back taxes. Now that would be useful.

Actually, he makes some good connections regarding the timing of this land deal and the money being thrown around by these well-heeled foundations. It doesnt matter where you stand or where he stands, bringing these kind of factors to light is what is necessary for the public to properly vett land deals like this, which helps establish a climate of public accountability in a effort to bring about legitamacy and transparency. This is publicly owned land after all [[even if the neighbors can't keep up with all of the illegal dumping).

This process is what community buy-in is all about.

[bailey]

Whether people agree with that Opening of Detroit article or not, there is nothing wrong with having a counterpoint to the Nolan Finleys of the world.

Actually there is when it's simply to allow ignorant positions/ wild ass conspiracy theories an equal say. At some point some one has to call out stupidity for what it is.

You don't bring the KKK in to discuss Affirmative Action.... You don't bring "Spare Change"/"9/11 truthers" in to talk about terrorism.... etc

[Motor City Sam]

Actually there is when it's simply to allow ignorant positions/ wild ass conspiracy theories an equal say. At some point some one has to call out stupidity for what it is.

You don't bring the KKK in to discuss Affirmative Action.... You don't bring "Spare Change"/"9/11 truthers" in to talk about terrorism.... etc

Wow, you are really drawing a parallel between a group like the Opening of Detroit and the KKK?

[401don]

Maybe I'm missing something here but if citizens are concerned about these lots being sold why doesn't the city just lease the land for the express purpose of tree farming and charge the equivalent amt. that would be paid in property taxes if it was sold? After all this is a new usage. They could have first right of purchase if the city agrees to sell after 5 or 10 yrs. or whatever is deemed suitable.

[JVB]

...or they could sell it to a developer that they know will actually do it and not have to deal with the headache.

[401don]

...or they could sell it to a developer that they know will actually do it and not have to deal with the headache.

Obviously, but the clownsil seems to have the say [[for now) and this would be risk free. How hard is it to lease? The city is happy to own and lease the stadiums.

[davewindsor]

Obviously, but the clownsil seems to have the say [[for now) and this would be risk free. How hard is it to lease? The city is happy to own and lease the stadiums.

Ya, risk free...

Would you lease and improve at your own expense vacant land in Detroit with a lot of garbage on it?

It's a ridiculous proposition unless there's something more to it in the long term like property ownership.

On the other hand, leasing land with a $57m taxpayer funded improvement on it for $25K a month is an offer that's hard to refuse. Unless of course, you can get more government money and move it in closer proximity to your casino to boost your casino revenues in addition to stadium revenues.

The analogy is like comparing apples to oranges.

[Honky Tonk]

Ya, risk free...

Would you lease and improve at your own expense vacant land in Detroit with a lot of garbage on it?

It's a ridiculous proposition unless there's something more to it in the long term like property ownership.

On the other hand, leasing land with a $57m taxpayer funded improvement on it for $25K a month is an offer that's hard to refuse. Unless of course, you can get more government money and move it in closer proximity to your casino to boost your casino revenues in addition to stadium revenues.

The analogy is like comparing apples to oranges.

You know what? Fuck Detroit and the Shitty Clowncil. Let this precious garbage and tire filled jewel lie. As attractive as it is, I'm sure it'll draw Trump or some other developer here in the near future. They'll put up a global corporate office and make Detroiters all CEO's instead of sharecroppers.

[Eber Brock Ward]

Meh, I don't feel particularly strongly about this, but if his motivation is to create greenspace and possibly farmland one day, why wouldn't the city and him broker a deal in Brightmoor or or up at like 7 and Gratiot on the eastside?

Quoted from a debate on facebook we're having, and that I agree with:

[There are two issues, economic and social.]

Operating under the premise that this will be trees or ag only: Economically, I have not seen a compelling argument for why the Hantz project needs to be located where proposed instead of somewhere else with less development potential. The best one I can think of is proximity to his resources, but a Gratiot-area location is about equidistant to Hantz' Mt Elliot HQ. Re time-value of these plots, we agree that it's low in each instance [[proposed or alternative locations), but I believe [[hope) that we can agree that, whatever it may be, the multiple is greater in the proposed area than it would be in the two alternatives I suggested, or most other alternatives for that matter. No need for the city to give that up that increment/margin, however small, when Hantz' can accomplish any econ goals equally in those other places. Alternatively, if you remove the premise that it's just for trees/ag only, then it is a nearly-nekkid land grab and a whole different analysis applies, particularly politically.

Onto the social aspect as a second, distinct issue. I think it's great he wants to clean that area up. I also think he can clean it up and plant trees without obtaining title to the land. There are lots of programs that get approvals and do that sort of thing, and with his connections and money I believe that is something that he could achieve quite easily and at a lower cost than would be required than under a scenario in which he purchases the land.

All that said, reasonable minds can obviously disagree. And while I often criticize the Council for being obstructionist, I would not be approving the project *as proposed* were I a Councilperson.

Either way, would make a good barstool debate sometime.

[JVB]

Meh, I don't feel particularly strongly about this, but if his motivation is to create greenspace and possibly farmland one day, why wouldn't the city and him broker a deal in Brightmoor or or up at like 7 and Gratiot on the eastside?

Quoted from a debate on facebook we're having, and that I agree with:

He's not interested in a deal in Brightmoor because there is less development potential. He's a businessman, his goal is to make a profit. Besides, you don't think he'd face the exact same issues with neighbors in those other areas who would see dollar signs and all of a sudden want to buy lots on their block?

[corktownyuppie]

Also remember that he has a vested interest in his own neighborhood of Indian Village. Putting up forestry and cleaning up blight in the proposed area will help his own neighborhood retain property values, which IMHO, is a good thing. 7 and Gratiot does nothing for him there.

The time and era for Detroit to be super-choosy about these kinds of deals was long ago. Like it or not, the city is in a full-fledged financial emergency. We're talking DefCon 1 right now.

I'm not saying that this is the best deal for the city. I'm saying that it's the best deal that the city can get. Those are two different things.

[Eber Brock Ward]

He's not interested in a deal in Brightmoor because there is less development potential. He's a businessman, his goal is to make a profit. Besides, you don't think he'd face the exact same issues with neighbors in those other areas who would see dollar signs and all of a sudden want to buy lots on their block?

He's not selling it as a business deal. He's selling it as a social initiative.

He's essentially trying to reap the favorable treatment a social initiative receives [[and deserves) in my opinion, but also reap the business benefits.

Seems disingenuous at best, and I'm one of the first people that would criticize the Council for obstructionism, and often am, whether here or in real-life conversations.

[JVB]

He's not selling it as a business deal. He's selling it as a social initiative

He's selling it as both, which is what it is.

Mutual benefit, it's the foundation of capitalism. He gets to make a profit off the increasing property values, and if he's wrong and property values keep decreasing then he takes the loss. Meanwhile, the neighborhood gets cleaned up on someone else's dime.

[Eber Brock Ward]

Also remember that he has a vested interest in his own neighborhood of Indian Village. Putting up forestry and cleaning up blight in the proposed area will help his own neighborhood retain property values, which IMHO, is a good thing. 7 and Gratiot does nothing for him there.

The time and era for Detroit to be super-choosy about these kinds of deals was long ago. Like it or not, the city is in a full-fledged financial emergency. We're talking DefCon 1 right now.

I'm not saying that this is the best deal for the city. I'm saying that it's the best deal that the city can get. Those are two different things.

Two things.

1. With respect to forestry and cleaning up blight, you can do that without obtaining title to the land. I see people from various groups planting trees and picking up trash all the time. Hantz has the resources and organizational capability to clean up the proposed area.

2. With respect to the business deal, I don't know that it is a good deal for the city. Given the way IV has stayed intact, and as the West Village continues to get better, it's not unlikely that development will spread east of Burns. With that in mind, and VERY simply, the [[a) revenue gained from the sale of the land, plus the time value of that money and the property taxes to a given future date in time may very well be lesser than [[b) the value gained at that date in time by selling. Obviously that's a hyper-simple model, but a more robust model, depending on what you plug in, very well may show that it's not a good business deal for the city.

I also think that "we need money" is a red herring in the discussion, because there frankly isn't much money in this deal for the city at this time, under the terms I've seen proposed in the paper and other articles.

[Eber Brock Ward]

He's selling it as both, which is what it is.

Mutual benefit, it's the foundation of capitalism. He gets to make a profit off the increasing property values, and if he's wrong and property values keep decreasing then he takes the loss. Meanwhile, the neighborhood gets cleaned up on someone else's dime.

See the post I wrote above about city benefit. I don't know that it is of benefit to the city, though I don't have time to put together a robust model and run the numbers.

[DetroitPlanner]

Two things.

1. With respect to forestry and cleaning up blight, you can do that without obtaining title to the land. I see people from various groups planting trees and picking up trash all the time. Hantz has the resources and organizational capability to clean up the proposed area.

Actually you can't there have been instances of people who have cleaned up the neighboring abandoned properties that have ended up being ticketed!

[Eber Brock Ward]

"Can" as in capable, with a permit, which I assume Hantz has the resources and wherewithal to get. Not "can" as in "just go do it."

[JVB]

Eber - your argument boils down to "keep doing what we've been doing", how has that worked for the last 40 years?

[Eber Brock Ward]

Have you read my posts, JVB, or do you lack reading comprehension?

[finster]

I've always thought that the only permanent solution for many of these areas was to clean them out and return them to small forests. It's just too much work to deal with the grass cutting, weeds, etc. on these blighted former homesteads.

I can't see how the future value of some trees 30 years from now would be even a small fraction of the costs of cleaning out all the debris, as in blighted houses, driveways, sidewalks, trash, etc. This most certainly is being done as a social experiment or philanthropy in my opinion.

I would not be opposed to the city or foundations doing this on their own but have no problem with a private entity doing it.

The supposed extraordinary value of this land bantered about on here is in my opinion only a complete fantasy.

I truly believe a forest is by far the easiest to maintain [[as in no maintenance except for occasional dumped garbage removal) and would actually add value to the surrounding neighborhoods overall.

I just can't see this land having that much value any time soon.

[Hypestyles]

I wonder will a yes or no vote finally happen today, or will it get tabled again? heh..

[JVB]

Have you read my posts, JVB, or do you lack reading comprehension?

You said:

"Given the way IV has stayed intact, and as the West Village continues to get better, it's not unlikely that development will spread east of Burns."

Like I said, do nothing and let nature take its course. It's worked great so far. Maybe in 20 years the area will clean itself up, or in 2 years with Hantz involved.

[Honky Tonk]

"He's a businessman, his goal is to make a profit."

WHAT? Oh HELL NO! Someone wants to clean up one of our jewels and MAKE A PROFIT! We can't have that! Let's just let it sit. Obama will buy it next trip through town. He'll start a bacon farm.

[AUSSIE]

I smell a rat

Cannot make any money out of this, why are they REALLY doing this?

This is a scam, Ponzi in the making, mark my words

Cheers