Should the city enter into this complex agreement to buy land in Goff?
Two thoughts
Why is it so complicated? The land is bought over time with ACI getting the appraised value if it sells to a developer before totally payout. Why wouldn't the city just buy the thing outright instead of being entangled with a contract that could bring disagreement later on?
Also, it is not unusual for cities to own land for development prospecting. The fact is that that cities have to get proactive and engaged in being the economic development agent if we want to see growth, especially where so little growth occurs.
A novice's take on the local, state and national political scenes
Me
David Allen
- Politics 101
- All politics is local -Tip O'Neil
4 comments:
It depends on what the city does with it. If they sit on their butts and don't try to develop it, it is a waste of money (although not a lot of money).
If they get in gear and market it to a company that will come in and bring a million dollar payroll to the community, then it is a home run.
A 5 year option on $140,000 piece of land for the price quoted is pretty cheap, as long as there are no hidden costs for insurance,maintenance,upkeep or loss of property tax revenue that offsets the "purchase" cost.
Maybe it is a property tax dodge. The paper should find out.
You see it all the time: radio stations with cows at their offices ("farm land" instead of developed business property), etc.
If it is not a tax dodge, it can put a particularly ironic ending to the shallow controversy about how the ACI is doing something they shouldn't in their work to develop Ark City.
The controversy all goes away if the city is developing the land against an almost no cost option. (Or comes back if found to be a tax dodge.)
Will it succeed? Depends on the economic rebound and how hard the city would work to make it happen over the next 5 years.
The city (because of federal grants, economic development funding and loopholes) can negotiate in a way that ACI can't.
If they will. That is the question.
The option is for 5 yrs. What commitment is the city making to work on that?
Challenge to the Traveler:
Find out:
Is it a tax dodge?
What are the development effort commitments from Ark City?
Is this land currently in the Ark City tax base? If it were developed, would it add additional county land to the city's tax base?
Is there a tax write-off for ACI associated with the "purchase"?
What do they (ACI) pay in taxes on the land now?
What will they pay then? (this is an easy one = 0)
What is the true cost to Ark City and the county?
Is the value guessed or appraised? If appraised, when? Before or after the real estate collapse? What is current FMV? Would it sell at arm's length for $140,000: $4,242/acre today? (if so, please let me know how to do it. I have some AC property I'd like to sell)
An option to buy is no option if the exercise price is inflated. It is a sucker deal.
Investigative reporting.
Dig deeper.
If their tax rate is the same as mine, then $1,155 per year is chump-change. Walking-around money.
Need more info to make sure AC isn't being snookered because nobody wants to look deeper than the surface.
In-depth reporting would make this one interesting.
If it was owned by anyone different would it even be an issue?
We buy land from many sources and for many reasons so why is this such an issue?
This town is so ready to assume the most negative response and we can't move forward because of that. We WANT to hear the worse and think the worse and that is the very reason we GET the worse. Get positive and for once think how this could benefit the future.
We have to start moving forward so let's start today
Dave,
In the interest of fairness, shouldn't you disclose the fact that the Traveler owns several shares of ACI stock? Somewhere in the range of 100 shares I believe?
I think your subscribers have the right to know that the Traveler may benefit from the sale, and maybe that affects the editorial view?
Dem darn bankors dey had mo monie dan me. Eye caunt stawnd dem bankors.
Post a Comment