The Hantz Group Eastside Woodlands Project

**mikeg19** · October-19-13, 12:44 PM

I know there is a thread on this somewhere but I couldn't find it. So I'm a bit curious to see what people are thinking about these large scale blight clearing projects and ownership of the parcels. We have Bill Pulte clearing large swaths of land for reclamation; Dan Gilbert is working on a board to determine appropriation of demolition funds that should clear a considerable amount of land; now Hantz has finally gotten the go ahead to move ahead with his large scale plans to clear 1500 parcels and convert them to a tree farm/urban farm.

This plan seems to have caught the most flack, with a lot of the attention going toward the "one person shouldn't own that much land" argument. I'd think people would be more concerned with Dan Gilbert owning millions of feet of prime real estate in downtown than someone owning 1500 parcels pf land outside of downtown. It seems like he has a viable plan for the otherwise trashed property. Why so much controversy over what he does with the land? I understand there will be those opposed to urban farming and would like to see a different use of the land. But it's not as if anyone else was banging down the door to redevelop that land into housing or office space. It's property back on the tax rolls.

I'm interested to hear comments on this project from people.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2.../BIZ/310180088

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · October-19-13, 01:14 PM

I know there are a lot of naysayers because it involves a lot of property. But according to the article, the city gets $520,000, and Hantz pays for the title work, clean-up and demolition for an estimated $3,200,000. The properties will be clean and maintained. Presumably these properties will be back on the tax rolls also. Seems like a good idea to me.

For the naysayers, I have a question. How many of these parcels were you prepared to buy, clean, maintain and utilize? Its not like anybody is clamoring for these lots.

**401don** · October-19-13, 02:08 PM

Does the area get re-zoned commercial and how do they assess property taxes when there's no structures?

**313WX** · October-19-13, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by 401don

Does the area get re-zoned commercial and how do they assess property taxes when there's no structures?

Technically, wouldn't the land be re-zoned for agriculture [[versus for commerce)? And yes, that's a good question about the property tax assessment. How much can revenue can a tree farm honestly generate? They tried a "tax on trees" in the Soviet Union and that failed miserably.

**rjlj** · October-19-13, 04:52 PM

Finally, progress. Can't wait to see the cleaned up area.

**sumas** · October-19-13, 08:12 PM

First off, there will be no farming. The tree farm is a myth. They are willing to clear blighted property and have already done some. Trees will be planted.

Essentially for their investment, they get a huge block of property that they can turn over and sell and or develop in a few short years. Maybe a good thing maybe not. time will tell..

**professorscott** · October-19-13, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by 401don

Does the area get re-zoned commercial and how do they assess property taxes when there's no structures?

Michigan is a right-to-farm state so you don't need commercial zoning for farming, though in cities what you can farm is often restricted. I'm not aware of any city that has an ordinance about tree farming, which if you drill down to basics involves three steps: planting trees [[which anyone can do), waiting for a long time [[which anyone can do), and cutting trees down [[which anyone can do). The oddball step afterward - selling the cut-down trees, or selling live trees - is the only thing where some sort of commercial licenses come into play.

So far as taxation, farm property devoid of structures exists all over Michigan and there are well known standards for how to assess such property.

**mikeg19** · October-21-13, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by sumas

First off, there will be no farming. The tree farm is a myth. They are willing to clear blighted property and have already done some. Trees will be planted.

Essentially for their investment, they get a huge block of property that they can turn over and sell and or develop in a few short years. Maybe a good thing maybe not. time will tell..

I think that's also an area of contention with some people on this board as well. If Hantz decides in 5 years that he wants to build something on the property, what's the big opposition to him doing so, or selling to a developer? I seem to remember from past comments on the subject that a lot of people had a problem with that aspect.

And as far as taxes go, you guys are right, I'm not sure how one accesses tax value to a couple dozen trees on a plot of land. But I'd sure rather look at that then burned out houses.

**Armin** · October-21-13, 08:07 AM

How long do you have to wait after trees are planted before they grow to a mature age and are ready to be harvested?

**Blueidone** · October-21-13, 08:34 AM

My former employer was going to build housing near the land Hantz owns. So he met with Mr. Hantz to discuss his plans. What Mr. Hantz said at the time was he was going to grow hardwood trees, which take 20 - 30 years to mature. But this was a couple of years ago and the plan has changed several times, so I'm not positive.

**Honky Tonk** · October-21-13, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by Blueidone

My former employer was going to build housing near the land Hantz owns. So he met with Mr. Hantz to discuss his plans. What Mr. Hantz said at the time was he was going to grow hardwood trees, which take 20 - 30 years to mature. But this was a couple of years ago and the plan has changed several times, so I'm not positive.

No, last I heard it still takes 20-30 years to grow hardwood trees......

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · October-21-13, 10:09 AM

I am ambivalent about this project. Even getting the land on the cheap, it does not seem like a highly profitable proposition to me. And certainly not in the first number of years of operation. I assume the plan tears up the streets and infrastructure, which will cost a ton of money. I mean, that's the developer's dilemma, and I wish them look.

**Blueidone** · October-21-13, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

No, last I heard it still takes 20-30 years to grow hardwood trees......

Very funny HT...at one point his plan was for evergreen [[Christmas) trees...and before that farming for profit...maybe his plans have changed again....who knows.

**Honky Tonk** · October-21-13, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Blueidone

Very funny HT...at one point his plan was for evergreen [[Christmas) trees...and before that farming for profit...maybe his plans have changed again....who knows.

I've never heard the evergreen story, [[Thanx for the "Christmas" explanation, by the way

), I've always heard it was going to be "hardwood" trees. Even if he clears the land, takes care of it, breaks it up into parcels, and makes a profit selling it to investors, It's a far cry better than it sitting in condition it was, and realistically, would've continued to sit that way. This wasn't rocket science. The City, or anyone else could have done the same, but you and I both know, that would've never happened.

**nain rouge** · October-21-13, 11:37 AM

I'm in the group that fails to see what the big deal is. If you were willing and had the means to do the hard work of clearing vast tracts of vacant land, I'm sure the city would give you a sweetheart deal, too. Yes, there's those that are upset whenever a developer fails to commit to rebuilding Detroit as it was in 1950, but to those I ask: have you been to the east side lately? What kind of development, outside of in "The Villages" and Eastern Market, could actually work?

Seriously, take a drive. You'll see new homes that are already abandoned, a brick, urban commercial strip built recently on Gratiot by a church that's completely vacant, and etc. The only way to save the east side is to bring more Faygos and Better Mades in, but I don't see any employers stepping up. It is what it is.

**downtownguy** · October-21-13, 01:24 PM

Since much of this was covered on the other thread, I'm not going to waste time finding sources again, but my recollection is that he plans to farm a specific type of hardwood that DOES mature in 20 years. There is no reason for the infrastructure to get torn up, as he will be using existing lots of all shapes and sizes, and not aggregating them into one large "block of property" as sumas says.

I'm also fairly certain that while many people were criticizing council for calling for public hearings instead of just taking his plan at face value [[as Bing pressured them to do), that extra due diligence was responsible for putting in place some specific parameters as to how long he has to farm these properties before "flipping" them.

I also seem to recall that there is a different tax classification for an agricultural use such as this, so he DOES get a lower rate, but nonetheless he will be paying taxes.

I was skeptical at first, but now I'm quite excited about it. It removes blight from these neighborhoods on Hantz's dime, the city collects taxes that weren't there before and these neighborhoods will now be sprinkled with hundreds of lots of trees where once there were abandoned structures and/or weeds. As I said in the other thread, in other neighborhoods, these lots would be referred to as "parks."

One other point, Hantz lives in the area. He is not an outsider. He has skin in the game.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · October-21-13, 11:00 PM

In terms of aesthetics, will the "farm blocks" be fenced? Will there be maintained sidewalks & lighting? Its hard to visualize this in my head. Anyone know?

**Richard** · October-21-13, 11:31 PM

There are several blight buster companies that are receiving funding from the $52 million.

The city has pulled all houses from the tax auction deemed in need of demolition and is offering large block sales only,it has cancelled currant bids.

So,

Start a blight buster company.

$100,000 will get you started by buying a bulk package from the city.

Receive funding from federal demolition funds.

$10,000,000 Should be enough to get you going.

Charge $5,000,000 in administrative costs and use the rest for the demolitions,you can leave the basements,it okay because it is a crises and the public wants them gone at any cost,it is fed money so it is not like we are actually paying for it.

There you go,100 grand nets you 5 mil in the bank and the best part is you get to keep the land with all costs covered no out of pocket.

The plus side is ten years down the road you can apply for tif funds to build a subdivision because you will be improving the city.

Think bigger,you have Mr. Gilbert, a mortgage company,on the demolition board.

You now have a builder that controls a very large undesirable section of English Village.

So you have the funding of the land at no cost,the developer and the mortgage broker in place all in a neat little package.

Good for the city as a whole? I guess time will tell.

But make no mistake,nobody is doing this out of their pocket or out of the kindness of heart.

Kinda shows where to speculate for the kids collage,opps city made sure you cannot do that.