The ACI land sale to the city is back, which means the city commission is renewing focus on bringing development to Goff Industrial Park. With the current commission, a tax increment financing deal is possible, but not necessarily the inevitable outcome, of the land purchase.
As I wrote before, the controls that the city is allowing ACI to retain over the land seems odd, especially since some think ACI and the city are too cozy already. But some say the sale terms are typical for a speculative land deal.
In the end, it seems wise for the city have some land available so they can facilitate the necessary improvements, incentives to get a major employer here.
The question has mostly been over what KIND of employer - retail, manufacturing, warehousing, etc.
A novice's take on the local, state and national political scenes
Me
David Allen
- Politics 101
- All politics is local -Tip O'Neil
10 comments:
ACI just won't be denied access to the taxpayers pocketbook!
With all that land already and becoming available along the 77 corridor and at Strother Field!
They can't develope Goff Industrial Park so the City MUST!
Let them plant and harvest Wheat!
As I wrote before, the controls that the city is allowing ACI to retain over the land seems odd, especially since some think ACI and the city are too cozy already.
I don't believe I ever saw a "For Sale Sign" on that property!
That is usually how market forces determine land valuation!(Through
competition and competitive bidding!)
So, how do you insure that you get your price? (Even at half the price?)
Use the Local Government and taxpayer dollars?
Seems pretty clear to me!
(Whose determining and getting their price!)
That's how speculative deals are done?
Wasn't it speculative deals that helped accelerate/ensure the demise of HNB?
Maybe some of those players didn't learn their lesson!
Let me get this straight....
1. The city is not paying for this land, other than the income it is already generating, unless it sells to someone else.
2. If it does sell, the city pays off ACI and gets to keep half of the difference of the sale price versus the buying price.
3. Without using any taxpayer dollars the city would be taking in additional funds.
4. Once the property is sold the new owners would be paying taxes either immediately or after some term (depending on if any economic incentives are used) so that the tax burden on US the citizens would be decreased.
It appears to me that the city (us the taxpayers) come out ahead on this deal. Except for those who prefer no growth and paying higher and higher taxes as the cost of everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) continues to go up.
I for one am trying to figure out why anyone would not want the city to do this. The city (US THE TAXPAYERS) come out ahead no matter what angle you choose to view it from.
Interesting post but:
1. The city is not paying for this land, other than the income it is already generating, unless it sells to someone else.
**So why even involve the City in the first place?
2. If it does sell, the city pays off ACI and gets to keep half of the difference of the sale price versus the buying price.
** If it sells it must be approved by ACI! So again why involve the City? The City doesn't own it! (Can't ACI approve/refuse any offer even the type of business/land use?)
3. Without using any taxpayer dollars the city would be taking in additional funds.
** Who is responsible for the improvements to the property?
(Utilities, streets, etc.)
4. Once the property is sold the new owners would be paying taxes either immediately or after some term (depending on if any economic incentives are used) so that the tax burden on US the citizens would be decreased.
** So it went from property which was in the county - from which the
city received no taxes - to property annexed in the City Limits - for which the city becomes liable for general services? Where did the the City and taxpayers come out SO FAR AHEAD? (There will be no doubt a tax island or tax deferred deal
made to develope that property!)
The bottom line is that the City does not hold title to that land - anything must be approved by ACI!
WHY DOES ACI NEED THE CITY?
Btw: Me thinks ACI wants to structure their deal so that the land is in the City Limits. But ACI doesn't have to pay the City taxes on that property (because its under City control?) or pay for the cost of its developement!
Maybe they should just sell it to the City at FAIR MARKET VALUE for unimproved land! Let the City have full control of its own destiny!
OR
Maybe they ought to build a Mosque?
The sweet thing about this deal is it takes the County and School District out of the TIF approval process.
The sweet thing about this deal is it takes the County and School District out of the TIF approval process.
It would seem that a deal constructed in the manor you suggest - put together by the city attourney and ACI!
Where the intent was/is to circumvent the normal process and eliminate effected parties?
Might be deemed a little shady - even if its legal!
It does not take either of those taxing jurisdictions out of the TIF.
Hmm,
Here is a couple of questions you need to ask yourselves:
1. Why would someone want to deal or buy land from two parties? (especially when the party thats selling it does own or actually control it?)
2. Why does ACI want to retain control over the property? (Why don't they just sell it to the City or someone else for a meager profit and just MOVE ON!
When Winfield bought land for their Industrial Park Addition they paid the landowner and then I believe gave the land to the businesses that built on that land!
(The "BIG" Rubbermaid warehouse - and then BTR Robotics and Schwan's relocated their businesses! Their Industrial Park is FULL!)
Btw: I was told that ACI was approached about building that "BIG" Rubbermaid warehouse at Strother Field and they declined!
So why doesn't ACI just sell to the City! (At a Fair Market Value for undeveloped land and make a small profit? OR just do something on their own OR nothing at all!)
I think they have owned it for a long time! (what at least 10-20 yrs. or more?).
Post a Comment