3 ms·
I wonder how much it would cost to compensate the business owners along the construction project. The reason cut and cover is usually avoided is because of busi
by jdavis703 9y ago
I wonder how much it would cost to compensate the business owners along the construction project. The reason cut and cover is usually avoided is because of business NIMBYism as they're concerned the construction will harm their business. Since it's so expensive to do these other methods of construction maybe the construction should just pay the businesses to relocate out of the savings from using cut and cover.
- thriftwy 9y agoI think that businesses should really appreciate the foot traffic that Metro station would bring. It's three years of losses and then 30 years of profits. If we're talking about renters, they can move out if they don't like the hassle, and landlords will surely compensate losses with sweet deal they'll get once subway is open.
- bradleyjg 9y agoCommercial leases are generally ten years long. The landlord ends up capturing most of the increase in value, while the current lessees end up eating most of the costs.
- thriftwy 9y agoI would imagine that current lessees' influence will be pretty limited and definitely offset by their landlords. Public reaction on top of that. I don't understand why their word will be decisive here.
- lukeschlather 9y agoI don't really think so. Small business owners are often much more influential at the city level than lobbyists paid by out of town landowners. Even if the landowners have significant influence, they're outnumbered by the lessees and the lessees have a lot more to lose.
- thriftwy 9y agoI can see how this might become a problem. Small business owners will be hostile to any city configuration change, because they'll have to adapt to it and that will require some effort from them. Naturally their influence has to be limited in order to see any kind of motion forward.